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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY- MORNING, 26, °l' 4•

Powers, or their squabbles with their subjects, as .
long as those subjects conducted themselves peace- I
ably and properly in this country. (The Honourable, I
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-
berg ? 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 ciovernment.—(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
not 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 Stolzberg 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 subject.
Dr. BOWRING 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 lion. 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 com-
plaint, of the words of the petition, and until the
lion. Member rose to address the ouse, 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 he 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 hail vested in the Secretary of State
the power of issuing warrants of this description ;
4t 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
he 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 presCrit 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-
mont.--(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 Parliarnent.—(Hear, hear.)
ThOHon. 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
any Party so opening or detaining letters was
Guilty Q# a misdemeanour, andW.
..11$ liable to be in-
ha (Sir J, Graham), naa so violated the
law. he was of a misdemeanour, and he Could
be prosecntepi.sm(lronical cheers.) 'The legal tribu-
nals of tile POWItTv .would do )ustioc; between the

humblest individual and the highest civil autltority.
He was amenable to the civil tribunals of the
country, and could be punished either by fine or
imprisonment, if he had transgressed the law.
But he demurred to any explanations then ; he
demurred to a Committee of the House to in-
quire into it. Legal proceedings might be in•
stituted against the individual who detained
those letters, and, if he violated the laW, he was
responsible to the injured laws of his country.
The question was, had the law been violated or no ?
He could state that the power as exercised by him
had existed from the time of the Revolution, that
when exercised by him it had been exercised in its
accustomed form, and that he had in no degree de-
parted from the highest constitutional authorities
among his predecessors. He distinctly denied that he
had exceeded the authority reposed in him, or that
he had departed in anything from the provisions of the
Act of Parliament. He had obeyed the law, and not
not only had he obeyed the law, but he had not de-
parted from the usages of his predecessors in similar
cases. He was certain that this would not be re-
garded as a party question. He relied upon the
practice of his office—his conscience was pure in this
matter—he htiA discharged his duty, which was a
solemn and an important one—he demurred to
.any
inquiry on the part of that House, and he should
resist the motion for a Committee on the subject.

Mr. MACAULAY could assure the Right Hon.
Baronet that he had no wish to introduce into this
discussion any matter of a personal or party charac-
ter. But the Right Hon. Baronet did not seem at all
sensible of the peculiar position in which he stood.
If they said that this power was a necessary power,
still they must admit that it bordered so closely
upon the odious, was a power so singularly abhorent
to the genius .of the English character, that it was a
power which, if necessary, the House was bound to
watch with the most scrupulous jealousy. They
ought to know precisely the nature of the warrants
by which these letters were opened, and if, in a case
like this, all a Minister said :—" I have power by
law • I am responsible ; I will not give you any
further account of this matter, he must say it was a
case likely to excite the suspicion that that power had
been abused. He could not help saying, without
wishing to cast the smallest imputation on the motives
of the Right llon. Gentleman, that this was not one
of those cases in which it was sufficient for a Minister
to say, " You know my character; lam responsible;
and I. ask you to have confidence in my discretion.
One most important matter which it was proposed to
submit to the .Committee was to consider the-propriety
of altering the present state of the law. For that
state of the law both parties were equally responsible.
He did not attribute to any person on either side of
the House any disposition to use dishonestly the
powers by which they were invested by that law,
but he must say that some attention had been called
to those powers, that without great modification they
could not be suffered longer to exist.—(Cheers.)
He began by stating this, that he defied anybody to
say why a letter in the post-office or the post-bag
should be dealt with differently from a letter in his
desk. Why was it put into the post-bag?—was it not
for the purpose of transit, for which the public gave
the Government a certain revenue ; but if this
was to be turned - into a system of secret
police, the sooner it was no longer the law of the
land the better.—(Hear, hear.) Were there any
reasons for examining a letter in the Post-office more
than there was in the desk of a private individual ?
Let them take the case of the most treasonable plot
that could be thought of—the letter concocting, or
written with respect to that plot, might have transit
to the party concerned as easily in his (Mr. Ma-
caulay's) pocket as by means of the post-office. Let
letters, if they were to be examined in transit, be ex-
amined as if they were found in his possession, by a
court of law. Look to the case of Mr. Wilks ; he
brought an action against the Secretary of State for
the Home Department for, taking his letters impro-
perly, and the jury gave him damages to the amount
of 1,0001. That was what he called ministerial re-
sponsibility.—(Cheers.) If the case was otherwise,
hundreds of letters might be opened upon the most
trivial grounds, and the parties, have no redress.
If it were possible to show him that the examination
of a letter bAfore it arrived was less injurious than
the examination of it in the desk after it had arrived,
then he would give up the argument..-7-(Hear, hear.)
The whole of their arguments belonged to a class
which had been repudiated by this country long ago.
—(Cheers.) The question was not whether they
should take advantage of the spy system, under some
form or other, for that was a question which had been
answered by our ancestors long ago.—(lmmense
cheers.) What earthly difference could thAy make
between the employment of a spy upon words spoken
and words written? What difference was there whe-
ther they kept an agent to break the seal of a letter
in the Post-office, or to listen at the keyhole of a
door, or to note down the conversation of a drawing-
room ?—(Great cheers.) They would have the same
plea for the employment of police or the spy upon
speech, as for the spy upon letters. He would not
deny that the spy system might prevent crimes or
detect them when committed—so might—so did the.
torture—(lronical cheers from the Tory benches)—
but our Constitution forbade them both— (Cheers from
the Opposition replied to by ironical cheers.) -Whit ?
the Right Hon. Gentleman denies that torture pre-
vents crime? But could any man who looked to the
history of nations and times, where and when, torture
was a practice, doubt that, great as were its evils,: it
sometimes prevented crimes, and sometimes discovered
them? Why in the history of our own country, when
the rack was shown to Guy Fawkes, he let out the
whole story of the Gunpowder Plot. But that this
chance of good counterbalanced. the evil of breaking
up the constitution, trampling on its principles, and
destroying the manly spirit upon which for more
than upon any discoveries the police can make; must
depend the freedom and happiness of nations.—
(Great cheers.) He looked to these proceedings of
the Government with great uneasiness as to our own
country, but still more so as regarded those unfor-
tunate foreigners who took refuge amongst us.—
(Hear, hear.) The greatness of the evil was in-
creased by the mystery with which it was conducted.
—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet said that
since he came into office the letters of twelve.persons
had been opened. But the question did not depend
on the number of the cases, but upon the reasons by
which they were justified, of which the Right Hon.
Baronet refused to give any explanation.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Macaulay) gave the Right Hon.
Baronet credit for an honourable character on Friday
night, yet still he must say that if he could have
denied that stamps were counterfeited, and seals imi-
tated, and letters re-sealed to evade the suspicion that
they had been opened, he would have done so.—
(Cheers.) But the House could not be satisfied with
an explanation such as the Right Honourable
Baronet had :given.—(Loud cheers.) To state a
hypothetical case. Two years ago the country was
in a state of great excitement—violence was used by
great numbers to compel persons willing to work to
abandon their labour, and join the wandering crowds.
Much danger to the country was threatened by this
violence. At that time all the organs of the Govern-
ment party were in the habit of asserting that this
violence was the work of the Anti-Corn-law League.
He was not the nominee of the League, nor would he
hold a 'seat in Parliament as their nominee; but he
wished to have some assurance as to whether it might'
not, under the circumstances, have been found ne-
cessary by the Secretary of State to open the letters
of twenty or thirty English gentlemen, those letters
relating for the most part to private affairs, and to
important trade concerns, in which the correspon-
dents alone were interested, or by the publication of
which their commercial interests might be greatly
affected. .But the case of the foreigner was still
worse.—(Hear.) Whatever the letter of the English-
man might contain, you could not hang him or im-
prison him, or punish him in any way without a judge
and jury; but a poor Italian coining here, having
incurred some suspicion of his own Goiernment,
but confiding in the security of English institutions,
he corresponded with his friend in greater freedom
than he would venture upon but for that confidence.
—(Hear, hear.) The Austrian Government in-
forms the Foreign Secretary that the Italian is .a
dangerous person—his letters are opened, and their
contents are communicated to Austria, whilst he is
unsuspicious that the sacredness of the English Post-
office has been violated—he goes back to his own
country, then out pops the 'information, and he is at
once, without the intervention of a judge, certainly
without the protection of a jury, thrown into prison,
from which there is little prospect he will ever come
out.—(lmmense cheering.) For his part, although
he (Mr. Macaulay) never encouraged a tax in that
respect upon the governments of foreign countries,
but thought something of diplomatic decency should be
observed towards them by the Ministers of the Crown ;
yet, he must say, that if they (the Ministers) were
not appointed the judges of those Governments, they
should never stoop to be their spies.—(Immense
cheering.) He thought it would be better if the Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs were enabled to say that
the laws of this country gave him no power to comply
with the wishes of Foreign Powers in such matters,
and he would willingly vote for a Bill to declare such
to be the law. However, as the question stood, he
would vote for the motion for a Committee of inquiry.
[ —(The Right Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst - Ye•
hement and repeated cheers. When the cheering.
; subsided there was a pause of several seconds, mani-
festly in expectation that some one on the' idiniste-,
, rial benches would rise.)

Captain 13ERNAL then said that, whilst Gentle-
men on the other side were satisfied to leave the
House with the ghost of an answer, he could not be
silent without expressing his surprise at the conduct
of Alinisters, and his dissent from the monitroua
ductrineP which they 144c1 laid down,--(Cheeri,) Ile
bad thought it was the proudest boast of this country
that we were free from petty annoyances of police,
from the opening of letters, and from domicilliq

visits.—(Hear; hear.) - •An Irish Member opposite
expressed his abhorrence of the Pope ; hitt that must
be only in his spiritual capacity, fur the same Member
Supported the Goverment in giving effect to the
Pontiff's despotism in his civil character by these
unworthy means. He feared that the Secretary
for the Colonies, who had declared that England, to be
loved, must be feared, had inoculated the Government
with his views--(Cheers) for he believed
that Irish letters' had. frequently been opened in the
Post-office.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department had stood up in
the tattered garments of his .public credit, to defend
the conduct of the Government towards a Polish
gentleman, Count Ostrowski, whose deSk had been
broken open by the police, and his.papers 'seized and
handed over to the Russian Embassy.

The Earl of SIIELBURNE wished to call the
attention, of the House from what had fallen from
the Right llon. Gentleman. He told the Hon.
Member for Finsbury that, if he had grievances to
complain of at the hands of the Post-office,
he might institute proceedings at law—(Hear,
hear)—and that there would be no difficulty
on the part of the Post-office as to the production of
the warrant. If that were so, he did not see what
difficulty there could be in forwarding the letters
opened—(Hear, hear)—informing the person that it
was opened.

Sir R. PEEL said that he wished, in the first
place, to refer to a remark made by the Honourable _
Gentleman who spoke last but one, who attempted to
introduce a ease which had no bearing upon the pre-
sent matter, but which was calculated to produce
an undue prejudice against the Government. He
referred to the case of the Polish nobleman, Count
Ostrowski. He could state, on the authority of
his Right Honourable Friend, that no autho-
rity was given by his Right Honourable Friend
for the detention of any papers belonging to that
nobleman. The most rigid inquiry had been made from
the police, and there was every reason to believe that
every paper found in the possession of that gentleman
were delivered up to him, and no communications,
with regard to any papers found on that gentleman,
were made to any foreign diplomatic agent.—(Hear,
hear.) With regard to any authority derived from
the Government, he could speak on that point con-
clusively. With regard to the information which he
received, on inquiries which he instituted, he believed
that what he had stated to the House was perfectly
correct. In the couse of the debate Hon. Gentlemen
had dealt largely in assumptions with regard to the
power exercised by his Right Hon. Friend; and
seemed to think that his Right Hon. Friend had
spoken of that power as if it were a light power, and
one to he exercised without a serious and deep feeling
of the responsibility which attached to the exercise of
it. Nothing that had fallen from his Right Hon.
Friend could - justify such an assumption. He
stated that, as Secretary of State, he was in-
vested with the power by law which he was
not only authorised, but which he was called on, if
there was any consideration of public duty in ques-
tion to exercise. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that lie would assume that the power was universally
exercised. Now, what were the grounds on which
he founded that statement? On a former occasion,
four persons presented a petition to the House of
Commons, and that evening another petition had
been presented, complaining that their letters had
been opened. The Hon. Gentleman who brought
forward the motion had not stated who those persons
were, and had concluded his speech by a motion of
which lie had not given the slightest notice. With
regard to three out of the four who presented peti-
tions on a former occasion, they entertained' impres-
sions totally unfounded—at least his Right
Hon. Friend stated, that with regard to three no
warrant had been issued. His Right Hon. Friend
might have stated in perfect conformity with the truth
that the allegations in those petitions were unfounded;
but he was araid if he said that it might be consi-
dered that he denied the statement with regard to
all ; and he, therefore, stated that with regard to one
a warrant had been issued. His Right Hon. Friend
had declined to make any statements with regard to
it, and all he asked of the House was to draw no
conclusions from that.—(lronical cheers.) Now, how
stood the ease ? This power of issuing a warrant
had been committed to the Secretary of State since
the time of Queen Anne. About eight years ago,
when the Noble Lord opposite was the organ of the
Government in that House, an alteration in the Post-
office Act took place, and this power, in his
opinion, was most justly retained.—(Hear, hear.)
In his opinion the Government was justified in re-
taining the power they had retained. They con-
sulted the law, the amended law of the late President
of the Board of Trade, who he believed introduced
the Act and was the author of it as it now stood, re-
taining the provision nearly in the same words as the
Act of Queen Anne. He thought his Right Hon.
Friend was justified in exercising the power he had '
done. If the House thought the power ought to be '
extinguished, let it be so, but let it be done in a
proper and regular manner, by a motion for repealing '
the Act of which notice had been given. The Right
lion. Gentleman opposite had said that the system
might be carried on by the Government towards
their political opponents ; he believed he might ,
safely say that had not been the case in late years.
Ilk Right Hon. Friend had introduced no new prac-
tice as to opening letters ; he had not carried it beyond
the practice of Mr Fox and Lord Grenville. He
had not carried the powers of the law beyond the '
usages of those two persons. If the House pressed
his Right Hon. Friend to specify the cases in which
warrants had been issued, he thought it would com-
pel him to act unjustly to individuals.
Lord J. RUSSELL regretted that his Hon. Friend
had not given a definitive notice on the question,
but with regard to the position of the House, he did
not think it would make much, if any, difference. The
Right Hoe. Baronet the Secretary of State on a
former occasion had stated what his resolution was on
the subject ; the question, therefore, now stool ex-
actly in the same situation as it did on the former
occasion. With respect to notice as to the law of
opening letters, the question now before the House
was not only whether the Secretary of State had ex-
ceeded his power, but whether he had adopted a pro-
per interpretation of the law. In that respect the
Right Hon. Baronet seemed to have followed his
predecessors, and therefore, if the law had been impro-
perly interpreted, that must be corrected ; for his own
part he thought in dangerous times the law
would become useless if the interpretation
some people put upon it was considered
to be the right one. With respect to the law itself,
it was stated by Sir Robert Walpole that it was a
power to be used in times of public danger, and as a
proof of that he referred to the case of the Bishop of
Rochester, whose plot was carried on through the
medium of the Post-office.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord
J. Russell) thought the Right Hon. Baronet should
have taken the coarse pursued by Sir R. Walpole,
and have stated the principles on which he proceeded.
This power was to secure against public danger either
at home or abroad, and was to be used either to put
down insubordination at home or wars in other coun-
tries. In the performance of this difficult duty he
admitted that the Secretary of State must be the
judge if the public danger was so imminent as to jus-
tify his interference or not. But the Right Hon.
Gentleman had taken no such ground. He had not
enabled them to say that the power had not been ex-
ercised as had been stated by his Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury for the purpose of assisting
foreign Governments.—(Hear, hear.) If such were
the case he (Lord J. Russell) must say that it was a
most unjustifiable use of such power.—(Cheers.) If
the Right Hon. Gentleman had stated the principles
upon -which he had used that power. If the Right
lion. Gentleman had stated the principles on which
he had used the power—if the Right Honourable
Gentleman had stated that he agreed in opinion
with his Hon. Friend, that to use the power for the
purpose of assisting foreign Governments was an un-
justifiable use of that power, and that he had not, and
would not make use of the power for that purpose, he
(Lord J. Russell) would have been satisfied, and
would not have "voted for the Committee. But if the
Right Hon. Gentleman would not make such a decla-
ration, it certainly would not be beneath him, nor un-
worthy of his position to consent to inquiry on this
subject.L--(Cheers.) He recollected that during the
time of the late Government a committee of inquiry,
had been moved for at the time the Right Hon. Gentles
man himself was a member of the Cabinet. It was a
motion for inquiry into the conduct of Lord Mel-
bourne, who, as Secretary of State for the Home De-
partn ent, was accused of' having employed Popsy, a
private.in the police, in endeavouring to excite insur-
rection. Mr. Cobbett had moved for a committee of
inquiry into all the circumstances of the case, and the
Member for Oxford had objected that a committee
was not a proper tribunal for considering the circum-
stances of the case. Mr. Cobbett renewed his mo-
tion, confining it specifically to an inquiry as the em-
ployment of Popay. Lord Althorp, speaking during
the debate, had stated that the idea of employing
the police as spies had never been anticipated
either by the Right Honourable Baronet who had
first instituted the force, or by his successori in office.
that no words could be too strong to stigmatise con-
duct such as that of which Popay had been accused
but if he . had been guilty of such conduct he had
greatly exceeded his instructiens—that Lord Mel-
bourne had never given him such instructions ; and
Lord Althorp concluded by saying that he had no
objection to the appointment of a Committee.—
(Cheers.) The Committee was appointed, reported
to the House, and the subject was subsequently dis-
cussed. Had that been any injury to the Govern-
ment ? Par from it. The Government at that time
was strong enough to have secured a Ministerial
Jorltv to quash inquiry. But they had pat clone so.
—(Cheers.) It would have ;sen unwßrthy of them
to have done cheers.) There could be,
in fact, no real Ministerial responsibility unless thin
House instituted thoseinviries.—(ClAeer9