The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-15 00:00:00

zAIPER/AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 14 . .
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Cloek.. . •
Several petitions against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill
were presented.
TIIE STATE TRIALS.

In answer to a question from the Earl of WICKLOW,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there was no
foundation whatever for the report that the circuits of
the judges in this country had been postponed until after
the writ of error in the State trials had been disposed of.
PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND).
The •Earl of MINTO wished to ask whether it was
the intention of the Government to propose any measure
for assisting parochial education in Scotland. The
minimum income of the schoolmasters was 10s.la week,
and the maximum was 361. a year. It was evident that
for this remuneration the services of gentlemen of
superior education could not be obtained. He begged
therefore to ask whether it was to be hoped that
at some future day the Government would take this
subject into their consideration?

the Earl of HADDINGTON would not go into any.
discussion upon this subject, and would confine himselt
to answering the question put by his Noble Friend. The
attention of the Government had been turned to the
subject, and although it, seas not in his power to say
that the Government would introduce a measure this
season, he believed that it would be done next session.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the remuneration was
so scandalously inadequate that he wondered how men
of education could be found to fill the offices. He
thought their efficiency would not be impaired by
giving them adequate salaries.

The Earl of GALLOWAY agreed with the Noble
Earl Minto, that this was a subject worthy of the at.
tention of the Government. In some counties the
schoolmasters were paid reasonably, and were respect-
able and competent persons. But in other places their
position was much to be pitied. There was an Act of
1823, which was a disgrace to the statute•book, providing
that the house of the schoolmaster should not have more
than two apartments, one of which should be the
kitchen.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Duke of RICHMOND and
Lord CAMPBELL in favour of an increased stipend to the
schoolmasters, and alterations in the law respecting their
office,

Lord MINTO expressed his gratification at hearing
that the Government were disposed to introduce a mea-
sure upon the subject.

CORN-LAWS.
The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition
from Stafford in favour of agricultural protection. He
would not read the petition, because, although it was
respectful to the House, it was not respectful to the
League, and perhaps some of their Lordships might be
members of that body.

THE -BROTHELS BILL.
The Earl of POWIS presented several petitions in
favour of the Brothels Suppression Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL thought that in the discussion of
the Bill the Noble Lord, or some other Member of the
House, should use his privilege of ordering strangers to
withdraw. No one was more a friend to publicity than
he was, but he thought that the subject of this Bill was
one which should be discussed in private, as he supposed
some of the details were not fit to be canvassed by their
Lordships' families at the breakfast table.—(Hear, hear,
and a laugh.)
The Bishop of EXETER, in presenting a number of
petitions in favour of the Bill for the Suppression of
Brothels, said that he could not object to the Noble and
Learned Lord (Campbell) exercising his privilege, and
ordering strangers to withdraw when the Bill came on
for discussion. But he did not think that the discussion
would of necessity introduce anything more offensive
than the discussion of a divorce -bill. The Right Rev.
Prelate then moved the second reading of the Bill. He
said it was no part of his intention to punish persons for
prostitution, which he believed was its own punishment.
His object was to prevent the crime, and he rejected with
horror the doctrine that prostitution was necessary to
the prevention of Freater crimes. His Bill did not pro-
vide for the punishment of the seducer, although he
looked upon such a person as the worst of the agents of
Satan, and he would, if he could, direct all the vengeance
of the law against the seducer, however high his rank,
royal or lordly. It was for the sake of the victim, and
not of the seducer, that he would not drag her into
a court of justice, to convict her destroyer.
He would not proceed against those who were
guilty in the first instance ; but he thought that
it was the duty of a Christian Legislature to use every
means of putting down the trade of procurers and pro-
curesses. Even in heathen Rome such criminals were
infamous by law. 'I he Right Rev. Prelate then went
into an exposition of the law in certain countries of
Europe, in which the crime was, to some extent, licensed
—a'state of things which he hoped he should never see in
Christian England. The common law of this country,
which was a condensation of wisdom as well as of
morals, declared the keeping of brothels to be an indict-
able offence. But the law left it to individuals, on their
own responsibility, and at their own cost, to enforce it.
He stated several instances in which parishes arid indi-
viduals were put to large expenses in suppressing houses
of bad character. The Right Rev. Prelate then related
several cases in which parties had been prosecuted for
seeking and compassing the destruction of young
females; and he also related the means which were
adopted in the metropolis for seducing young women
from the paths of virtue. He would not trespass any
longer on their Lordships' time. He was addressiug
nearly one hundred of the Peers of England, and he
was sure, that if the whole of the august body were pre-
sent, they would not refuse to allow this Bill to go into
Committee.
The Earl FITZHARDINGE said the House was in-
debted to the Right Rev. Prelate for the industry and
research which he had bestowed upon this important
subject, and he hoped that the Bill would go into Com-
mittee. In the Committee an opportunity might be pre-
sented of refuting a charge which had been made about
two years and a half ago against a very venerable body
—the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. It was as-
serted that that body were the proprietors, in their
corporate capacity, of a great number of bro-
thels, of the worst kind.—( Laughter.) In the
Almonry alone there were twenty notorious brothels.
the property of the Dean and Chapter, being in the ra-
tion of two brothels for every one prebend.—(Loud
laughter.) In the Orchard-street district there were 30
of these houses ; in Pye-street, 40 ; and York-street, 20
—all the property of the associates, in their corporate
capacity.—(Laughter.) He hoped that the members of
that corporation would show in the Committee that they
were not amongst the class of criminals to put down
which was the object of the Bill.—(Great laughter.)
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER considered that the
Noble Earl had not given notice to those whom he in-
tended to attack.—(Hear, hear.) The property alluded
to by the Noble Lord was not under the control of the
Dean and Chapter, who, on every possible opportunity,
bought up the leases, and, at the greatest sacrifices, let
the premises to respectable persons.
The LORD CHANCELLOR recommended their
Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
Lord BROUGHAM was of the same opinion, and
thought that the subject was one of which the least said
the better.—(Laughter.) He could not say that the
present Dean and Chapter were to be blamed for owning
so many brothels—(Laughter)—but he did think it a
discredit to them that they had refused a place in
the Abbey, on the score of morality, to the statue of
Lord Byron, which was regarded as the chef-d'ceuvre of
the greatest statuary of the age.
The Bishop of LONDON contended that the Dean
and Chapter would have betrayed their duty if they
had admitted into their church the monument of a man
who had done so much injury to morals and religion by
his writings.
Lord LOVELACE earnestly vindicated the memory
of Lord Byron, but the Noble Lord spoke in so low a
tone that he could not be accurately reported.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Tuesday next.
The Slave Trade Suppression Bill then went through
Committee, when the House adjourned at Half-past
Seven o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 14.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.

Lord OSSULSTON presented petitions from North,
em ton against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON COMMIT.

T

'..-.. . ' . Vi
these Committees on private Bills ov t tli.if Nyhole of_ the -::./.. -.
session in the same manner as Elect' '- 'll3l,oitutittees. If 11.,
this were done,-and a time appointe *la 4049144erfi-, -,,-
Lion in Committee,,of each' Bill, the- i esiiikiiikkbpU goni;. ---)- i
plainGA of would be obviated. , , -: ••;_.....1.----
- : . #
, ,-_T vo
Mr. COLLEI'T briefly replied, and ncaotiolf Yitiri...l,
agreed to. .I._ts-N ~.-, ,

•
RAILWAY FROM -DUBLIN TO CAMEL.
Mr. VESEY obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
making and maintaining a railway from the city of
Dublin to the city of Cashel.. The Bill was brought up,
and read a fist time. The names endorsed on the back
of the Bill are those of Mr. Vesey, Lord Eliot, and Mr.
Wyse.

On the motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, the Man-
chester Stipendiary Magistrates Bill was read a third
time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. BRADSIIAW the Canterbury
Pavement Bill was read a third time, and passed.
On the motion of Sir J. Y. BULLER the Delabole
and Rock Railway Bill (No. 2) was read a third time,
and passed. •
Colonel FOX presented two petitions from bodies of
Congregational Dissenters in the Tower Hamlets, against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Dr. BOWRING presented a petition, signed by per-:
sons of various religious. persuasions, at St. Ives, in fa-
vour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lord C. MANNERS presented a petition from Leices-:
tershire against the income-tax.
Mr. H. BERKELEY' presented a petition from Bristol,
signed by religionists of all denominations, in favOur of
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Colonel WOOD presented a petition from Brecon,
against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
DETENTION OF LETTERS AT THE POST-
OFFICE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he, held in his hand a peti-
tion, a copy of which he had 'transmitted to the Right.
Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, informing him of his intention to present it,
and also to bring its contents under the immediate
consideration of the House, as the case was one re-
quiring immediate redress. It was the petition
of W. J. Linton, William Lovett, Joseph Mazzini, and
others, resident in London, complaining of the de-
tention and opening of their letters at the General Post-
office, and praying for immediate redress. The letters
were written from 47, Devonshire-street, Queen-square,
within the last month, and the petitioners said that
although they were not written .for any political
purpose, and did not contain any treasonable
matter, they had been detained at the Post-office by
the Post-office authorities beyond the usual time,
and they had been read at the Post-office.
The petitioners said they considered such a practice as
an introduction of the spy system of foreign States—a
system repugnant to the free system of the British Con-
stitution, and dangerous to liberty. They were pre-
pared to prove the truth of those allegations, and they
prayed for a Committee to inquire into the subject.
The petition was then ordered to be laid on the table.
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said, the course
which he might pursue would very much depend on the
answer which he should receive from the Right Hon.
Gentleman (Sir James Graham) to a question which he
should now put to him. His question was, then, whether
the Right Hon. Gentleman was aware that the letters
of these individuals had been opened, read, and exa-
mined at the General Post-office, and if so, whether it
had been done by the authority Of any one of her Ma-
jesty's principal Secretaries of States?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had to thank the Hon.
Gentleman for the perfect fairness and frankness of the
course he had pursued on the present occasion. He had
been so obliging as to send him a copy of the petition
yesterday, and to notify to him the precise ques-
tion which he meant to put ; and he had, there-
fore, had an opportunity of considering the
answer which he should give to that question,
The House was aware that from so early a period as the
reign of Queen Anne, power had been invested in the
principal Secretaries of State, by warrant, to detain let-
ters, and to empower the Post-office authorities to open
them. That power came under the review of Parlia-
ment in 1837, and by the Act of the Ist of Victoria,
that power continued to be vested in her Majesty's
principal Secretaries of State. With respect to the let-
ters of three of the petitioners, no warrant had been issued.
With respect to those of one of them, he had, on
his own responsibility, issued a warrant, which was not
now in force. Having made this declaration, he must
beg further to add that this power was vested
in the responsible officers of the Crown by the
law of the land—that it was entrusted to them
for the public safety—that the Parliament of the
country placed confidence in those who exercised
it ; and that it was not for the public good to press for
inquiry into this particular case.—(Hear, hear.) At all
events, he did not think it consistent with his public duty
to enter into any further explanation—he hoped the
House would confide in him to such an extent as not to
call for any further information.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUME, the purport
of which we could not catch,
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had carefully considered the
subject.. He had gone as far in explanation as he con-
ceived it his duty to go. He must respectfully but firmly
resist any attempt to call upon him for further infor-
mation.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that as the petitioners
called upon the House to grant them immediate redress,
he should now, as far as he was able, endeavour to give
effect to this petition. •
Mr. TATTON EGERTON rose to order. After
the explanation bad been given the Hon. Gentleman
could not, according to the standing orders, proceed to
address the House.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBB said he was within the standing
order of the House with respect to the presentation of
petitions, and it was greatly to the credit of the House
that that order admitted of the course which he pro-
posed to pursue in the case of petitions complaining of
some personal grievances, requiring immediate redress.
In the case of petitions complaining of some personal
grievances—,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM—I beg to state to the House
unequivocally, that no warrant now exists with respect
to either of the four petitioners.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said the case required imme-
diate redress notwithstanding that statement ; and he
must say he was astonished, and he thought the House
must be astonished, that the Right Hon. Baronet should
attempt to blink this discussion.
Mr. F. SHAW rose to order.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he was not to be put down.
—(Cheers from the Opposition.)
Mr. SHAW said the question now was, whether the
Hon. Gentleman could proceed to discuss this question.
The question was, whether there was a personal griev-
ance involved, and he would submit that as there Wll4
no warrant in existence, the Hon. Gentleman was not At
liberty to discuss the question.—(Oh, oh.) He did not
see how any person was at that moment affected by what
the Hon. Gentleman complained of.
Mr. DUNCOMBE rose but there were loud cries-of
" Chair, chair," upon which the Hon. Gentleman sat
down.
The SPEAKER—The order of the House under
which the Honourable Gentleman claimed the right of
speaking on this petition was to the following
effect :—" That in cases of petitions complaining
of personal grievances, for which there was an urgent
necessity of prOviding. immediate remedy, the sub-
ject-matter of such petitions might be brought under the
consideration of the House: In this case the Hon.-Gen-
tleman had given notice on the subject, and having given
that notice, it appeared to him that this was not a" case
of urgency requiring an immediate remedy.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he had no opportunity! of
bringing forward the question yesterday, and he took the
earliest opportunity of bringing it forward. What ho
complained of was, that the letters of those persons were
opened, and that the spy system of foreign countries was
introduced into this country.—(" Oh, oh," and " Chair.")
The SPEAKER repeated that he did not think this
was a matter of urgent necessity, requiring immediate
remedy; and, therefore, could not be discussed then.—
(Ministerial cheers.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE—I move, then, that this House do
now adjourn.—(Loud Opposition cheers.) Now I will
raise the question.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentle-
man,other telt_ee
nl;ni rgs toLfLord
aokfi the ay, retehseu rn3l-a,
itno
qutehsatti
omn thed it
was decided that he could do so.—(Hoar, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman, the Recorder of Dublin, would
not, perhaps, like that all his correspondence, relative to
the jury lists of Dublin, and the subtraction of certain
lists, should be opened and read by the House.—
(Cheers, and ' Oh, oh.") But others did not wish
to have their family secrets revealed. The Re-
pealers also would not like to have their correspoa-
donee examined and read, and copies of their letters
communicated to the Recorder of. Dublin.—(A laugh.)
What did these parties complain of ? The Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated that he had issued his warrant for
opening and examining the letters of these parties. Be
had no doubt that the Act of Parliament, the Ist of Vic-
toria, passed in 1837, recognised that power in the Se-
cretary of State. The power had existed previous to
btlniatthAe cdti,
dand nntebveeln from theievethatnntiemme theman
Commonwealth;
nfin
twenty
thnnsan
knew of the lines that had been smuggled into this Act,
placing their correspondence at the mercy of the Secre-
tary of State. It was a power that ought to' be
taken away from any Secretary of State, particularly
from one who exercised that power in an unscrupulous
manner. He had opened the letters of one of these
gentlemen. Would the Right Hon. Baronet state which
of them it was whose letters had been thus opened?
Sir J. GRAHAM—Certainly not.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—The Right Hon. Baronet would
not state whether it was the letters of Mr. Mazzini, bf
Mr. Lovett, or of the other two gentlemen. He had.
bentheus honouredtoldindizethtl indirectly,
et hpaatr telll'aars
attention
niiroanz soh; i t •eh
Right
Hon. Baronet. The law made it a misdemeanour
in any one to open a letter, or detain it
longer than necessary, unless it was misdirected,
or returned to the office, the person to whom it was ad-
dressed not being able to be found, or being dead. In
these cases the letter, if returned, was always marked as
returned for these reasons, and he contended that the
Act of Parliament intended that when letters were opened
by the authority of the Secretary of State, that it ehottd
be stated on their coier that they had been 'opened
by authority. Even in the time of Mr. Fitt and Lord
Sidmouth this was done when letters were opened by the
Secretary of State. Why this system of espiontige
should be countenanced by the Secretary of State 1.0
could not imagine in a time of perfect peace and
domestic tranquillity. He believed that during
the last two years letters had been opened at
the Post-office in a' most unscrupulous manner.
This was a state of things the people would not bear,
and he hoped after this exposure they would take some
Means or other to counteract this invidious conduct on
the part of her Majesty's present Ministers. It was
most disgraceful ; it might do for Russia, or for
France, or the Austrian States, but it would
not do for the free air of England. It Was
proved that the Government did open the letters of