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

i Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, in thinking that
if the practice were to become anything like fre-
quent, it would be far better it were abolished alto-
gether. He wished to know if there were anything
in the Act of Parliament to sanction the resealing of
the letters with a counterfeit seal similar to that with
which they had been sealed in the first instance ? He
would give his cordial support to the motion.
Lord STANLEY defended the conduct of the Go-
vernment. He would like to know how many letters
their predecessors in office had opened. The House
would support any Minister in refusing to give that
explanation. It was a power for the exercise of which,
the only security must be the honour and conscience
of the Minister of the Crown, who put it in force.
He gave no opinion as to the policy of affording that
power, but having bestowed it, it must be left to the
responsibility of the Minister to exercise it. He de-
nied that opening letters was a thing of daily occur-
rence; on the contrary it was but very rarely used.
He admitted frankly and fully that it was only to be
used on great occasions, and then only used with
caution ; but it must be used with secrecy and with-
out the Minister being called on to answer for the
manner in which he had used it.—(Loud cries of
" No, no.") He ag.tin contended that it must and
ought to be left to the responsibility of the Minister
of the Crown.
Sir G. GREY said the Noble Lord, with his usual
courage, had rushed to the rescue of his two Right
Hon. Friends, and certainly not before his aid was
wantei ; but he had not adduced one single argu-
ment, or made one single assertion, that had mended
the case. He had asserted, without the slightest
foundation of reason, that the total silence of the Go-
vernment as to the circumstances of the case was jus-
tified by the duty that devolved upon a Minister of
the Crown.. He (Sir G. Grey) undertook to contro-
vert that assertion. His Hon. Friend (the Member
for Finsbury), with a moderation that did not always
distinguish him, did not deny that the Government
possessed the power of opening letters, but charged it
with having exercised that power, given them for one
purpose, for a purpose wholly distinct.—(Cheers.)
His charge was not that they had used the power
vested in them bylaw, but that they had, at the in-
stigation of some" foreign G-overnment—(Loud
cheering) exercised that power, not to dis-
cover any plot against their Sovereign Lady the
Queen, not any plot against the Constitution of the
realm, but in order to enable the agents of foreign
Governments, or those Governments themselves, to
obtain evidence against the friends of those who
were here as exiles on political reasons, and whom it
had always been the pride and honour of this country
to receive with hospitality and sympathy.—(Cheers.)
He believed that the reasons on which the Home

Secretary had acted might have been explained to the
House, without any detriment to the public service.
If he were to vote against the motion of his Hon.
Friend, he should consider that he was sanctioning
the right the Government claimed to exercise, to open
letters at the Post-office, and make what use they
pleased of the contents, not for any State purpose, but
for some purpose unexplained, and an explanation of
which might have been given with thegreatest facility.
He should cordially support the motion for a Com-
mittee.

Lord SANDON rose, and attempted to address the
House, but the cries of "Divide, divide," and the
usual indications of extreme impatience, were so loud,
that only a few broken sentences reached the gallery.
He was understood to explain for his Hon. Friend
near him (Mr. S. Wortley) something in that gen-
tleman's speech that had been misunderstood. He
said he should oppose the motion on the ground that
to affirm it would be to deprive the Executive Go-
vernment of that confidence which they were entitled
to have from the House.

Mr. WYSE rose, hut was received with a perfect
storm of " Divide" and " Oh, oh !" which was re-
newed every time the Hon. Gentleman attempted to
utter a word. He stood for some time against it ;
but even his assurance that he had but a very few
words to say on the subject failed to propitiate the
House. He was still attempting to proceed, when
Captain BERNAL rose to order, and the con-
fusion was rather increased than diminished, loud
cries of " Spoke, spike," being added to the others.
He said he was in order in pointing out the Hon.
Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Gaily Knight)
as one who was active in interrupting his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Wyse) in his speech to the House. He
called on the Speaker to assert the right of Hon.
Members to freedom of debate.—("Oh," and "Spoke.")
Mr. WYSE at last proiSeded to say that, some
doubts having been thrown out as to whether these
letters were opened or not, he assured the House that
he had that day carefully examined the letters him-
self, and, in his mind, there could be no question that
they had been opened at the Post-office. Two letters
were addressed to Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Hamilton,
which were placed in the post at the same time. One
reached Mr. Hamilton at the proper hour, a little
after ten; the other letter did not reach Mr. Mazzini

till after twelve. On the latter, the post-mark had
been altered by another stamp having been made
upon the first one. There could be no doubt but the
letters had been opened. He should vote for the
Committee.

Mr. DUNCOMBE then replied. He denied that
he was liable to the charge of want of courtesy
brought against him by the Right Hon. Secretary.
He had given notice of the terms of the petition on
the last occasion, and the Right Hon. Baronet then
met him by stating that the warrant had been issued
but had been withdrawn. In consequence of that
statement. he (Mr. Duncombe) did not take a division
of the House on the question. But here he had
another case, and he thought he had given the Right
Hon. Secretary quite sufficient notice respecting it.
He could assure him the public would not be satisfied
with the explanation that had been given ; and if the
Committee should be refased, it would be a general
opinion that the Government was using a tyrant ma-
jority in order to stifle inquiry. This was no longer
a question of inquiry into the Post-office; it had
become a question of confidence in Ministers. Had

he made out a prima facie case of inquiry ? He con-
tended that he had ; he had accused the Government

of using its authority for the purpose of gratifying
the feelings of foreign Powers, not for the purpose
for which Sir It. Walpole said such an authority
ought to be used—that of warding off any danger
from the State. If they now refused an inquiry, they
would be admitting their own criminality.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided—the numbers were
For the motion 162
Against it 206
Majority against the Committee
SUGAR DUTIES.

-- 44

In answer to a question from Sir R. Peel
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought it would be more
convenient to postpone the third reading of the Sugar
Duties Bill till Thursday.
Sir R. PEEL said that as he wished the Bank
Charter Bill to be taken in Committee that evening, he
would not oppose the postponement of it.
The third reading of this Bill was then deferred till
Thursday.