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

I present care, the Government did not deny the facts ;
they would offer no explanation, and they would not
state on what principles they had acted. They con-
tented themselves with saying—" We have such a
majority as can stifle inquiry." Such being the
case, no vote of censure could be moved against
them.—(Hear.) It was quite out of the question to
attempt it.—(Hear.) The House and the public
were kept in equal ignorance of the facts of the case.
He did not know that inquiry would cast any blame
on the Right lion. Gentleman. It might not cast
more blame on him than it had on Lord Melbourne
in the case of Popay ; but if that inquiry were
refused, it would go hard to destroy the doctrine of
Ministerial responsibility. With regard to any alte-
, ration in the law, that was too grave a subject to be
discussed incidentally. It was perfectly competent to
any Hon. Gentleman to propose an alteration in the
law. He had approved of the law in 1837, and he
thought it was a power that ought to exist. If, how-
ever, upon discussion, it should appear that the exist-
ence of such a power produced more evil than good, he
would be prepared to abolish it ; but the question now
before the House was, whether, when a Minister
totally refused any explanation of facts, and would not
even say on what principles he had exercised his
powers, the House would be satisfied with that re-
fusal, and not exercise its functions of inquiry.
Mr. M. MILNES regretted that his. Right Hon.
Friend had not thought it consistent with his duty to
state one fact, and that was, that he had not com-
municated to foreign Governments the informa-
tion which he had thus acquired. If he had thought
it consistent with his duty to make this statement, he
believed that the public and the House would have
been satisfied. Now, although the Right Hon. Baro-
net had not thought fit to do so, he (Mr. M. Milnes)
could not consent to vote for the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.—(lronical cheers and laughter from the
Opposition benches.) He thought it most important
that the knowledge of these matters should be confined
to the secrecy of the Cabinet. The power should be
used by the Minister solely for his own information,
and the information so acquired should not be com-
municated to any other person. Now the Committee
could not be conducted without the violation of this
secresy, and without making public the contents of
those letters. He believed that they would find that
the agitation on this subject would lead to bringing a
powers into odium which he certainly admitted should
not be exercised but on extraordinary occasions.
Mr. SHEIL said as they were approaching the
critical moment of the evening, he thought it right to
address a few observations to the House. The House
should take care to distinguish between the case of
the present Government and that of the last. His
Noble Friend, the Member for London, when filling
the post of Home Secretary, might have given a war-
rant of authority for opening letters; but no refusal
had ever been made by his Noble Friend—no inves-
tigation had ever been denied—(Hear, hear)—no such
case had ever been brought before a British House of
Commons—(Hear, hear)—as that now under their
consideration, and which was certainly accompanied
with circumstances of a most suspicious nature.—
(Hear, hear.) A call had been made upon the Right
Hon. Gentleman to state reasons for acting in so un-
common a manner ; but he ans veered them by saying
he would meet the demand with his responsibility.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said he was sensible
of his responsibility. Why what was the meaning
of the term ? He said his conscience was pure, but
who, besides himself and colleagues, had an opportu-
nity of ascertaining the correctness of the statement ?
—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet asked
what were the facts. lie (Mr. S.) asked the same
question. Had not enough come out, even by the ad-
mission of the fact itself, to justify investigation ?
(Hear, hear.) They said it was a right—well he ad-
mitted the right, but did not the extreme assertion of
a right often reach the propinquity of consummate
wrong ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He was aware
that in the discipline of the army this assertion of au-
thority was often and perhaps necessarily carried out
to a great extent--he could understand the Duke of
Wellington as Commander-in-Chief, exclaiming at the
Horse Guards,- sic volo sic jubeo, fiat voluntas, but he
thought such language hardly became a Home Score-
tary.—(Hear.) Why should not the conduct of the
Home Secretary be made the subject ,of inves-
tigation in that House ?—if that check were not held
over the Minister his conduct might soon become
authoritative, arbitrary, and capricious.—(Hear, hear,
and great cheering.) The charge against the 'Home
Secretary was, that he caused a warrant to be issued
for the opening of a certain letter or letters, and that
he had done so without reference to any plot or con-
spiracy in this country.—(Hear, hear.) It was not
to discover any Chartist or Repeal organisation, but
it was entirely connected with our foreign relations.
Was not that so ? Had not the Hon. Gentleman read
an extract from the Milan Gazette, published four
months ago, in which it was boasted that the conduct
of this Mazzini was under the surveillance of the Lon-
don police ? And much the same statement was made
in the Augsburgh Gazette. Was it proper treatment
of an unfortunate refugee, who had sought an asylum
in the hitherto esteemed sacred soil of Britain,
whose misfortunes entitled him rather to sympathy
than condemnation, that his most secret thoughts
should be placed under the prying inquisition of a
British Minister ?—(Hear hear, and great cheering.)
He felt bound to say that the English Minister had
acted a most un-English part.—(Loud and long-con-
tinued cheering.) The British Home Secretary
ought not to degrade himself into the spy of a foreign
Cabinet. He should not allow himself to be made
instrumental in the procuration of evidence for a
foreign Minister—evidence, too, which might in-
volve the sacrifice of the properties, nay, even of the
lives of the suspected parties.—(Hear, hear, and re-
newed cheering.) Public opinion was against them.
In every part of the country there was but one feel-
ing of dislike at this conduct. The.people of Eng-
land felt indignant that a social inquisition of this sort
should be established.—(Hear.) His Right Hon. Friend
the Member for Edinburgh, who, though he repu-
diated the efficacy of torture, tried it with power, but
tried it in vain, on the Home Secretary---(Hear,
hear) the peine forte et dure proved useless.—
(Laughter.) He would not detain the House further
than by again protesting against the violation of that
secresy which had been long held sacred. He did not
think it was consistent with the principles of honour
or of justice that that letter should be broken open
in which the hopes, the fears, the joys, the afflictions,
and the affections of our fellow man were contained.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he thought that
voting for the present motion would be sanctioning
those unfounded imputations which had been cast on
the Home Secretary. lie thought the House was
not sufficiently aware of the merits of the case.—
(Hear, hear.) He would vote against the motion.
Mr. WAKLEY said the Hon. Member who had
just sat down would not vote for the present motion,
although he considered the character of the Govern-
ment had been unworthily dealt With ; he believed
the conduct of the Government so proper that he
Would refuse Inquiring into it, although he acknow-
ledged he did not know anything at all of the merits
of the case.(l-lear, hear.) The HMI. Member for
Pontefract expressed a wish to know what communi-
cation had taken place on this matter with foreign
States, but would vote against all inquiry which might
tend to elicit that information. He certainly thought
that the two Right Hon. Baronets (Sir 11. Peel and
Sir J. Graham) were not very happy on this occa-
sion.—(Laughter.) lie never was more surprised at
anything since he came into that House than at the
statement of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and the speech of the
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government.
The latter Right lion. Gentleman had never on pre-
vious occasions been subjected to a more disagreeable
occupation, in defending his colleague, than on this.
The manner in which he attempted to defend his con-
duct showed how bad the case was.—(Hear, hear.)
it would seem, from the spirit of the Home Secre-
tary, who complained that he had not had notice of
the fifth case, that numerous letters had been opened
at the Post-office. lie wanted to know how many
really had been opened. From the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet, it would seem that it was a
practice at the Post-office, and the House was justified
in so inferring from his speech.—(Hear, hear.) Pub-
lic feeling—public indignation had been aroused
against the practice ; and a man had rightly remarked
to him (Mr. Wahloy), a day or two ago, that a still
worse practice than the employing of spies by the
Government had been lately resorted to, for the Go-
vernment had become spies themselves,-----bear, and
cheers.)
to ileknew no prac-ice more odious, or more
likel bring
a Government into odium, or to de-
gradey the character of thn country in which it was
tolerated.—(Cheers.) This question might be said
to be the touchstone of Ministerial responsi-
bility; and if accountablility was not demanded
in such a Wig@ US this, he knew not when it
should be enforceti-----(Hear, hear.) The control
of the House of Commons, ov or the Government
becamemere mockery.—(hear, hear.) He thought
it was the bounden ant/ of that House to insist upon
inquiry. He observed thatthe lion Member for
the Right Hon. Baronet thon
h at variagjl
nce in other respects seemed to agree
ililinurtebsabto irloimugsehlf(aNnidr. errand) reminded
so muc .
to this House as etri-
la have the ki°ll. Moms-
in the same boat, and he won—
bi in
noanl —e P(oCrinret—atbcohtehert lan4drrat) laugh) _=--they_ Wore now
ber for Knarbsi;nropgh look out, as it was in A finking
state.—(Cheers.) He tlicki4glo that the party which
slipported the Government had been lately placed
in
as row a position Eli; they could be, but _ they._
oPPr
severed in adhering to an Adlnin
istration which cu.
be capable of such Act•%it VY, Pil proveon that
Ally
la
though in the depths of the ueep they find 11
lower gulf still.--(Cheers.)
Lord HOW.,lCic supported the motion, if the pre-
'sent system were aliowed t 9 go on, it might at length
be carried to such an extent, that tl.?,e Minister mielt
himself' be justified in breaking open the letters of fs
political opponents, ne agreed with his Right ilop?