The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

of nine Hon. Gentlemen, Members of that House, whose /
opinions upon what had been done would be communi-
cated to the House ; but who could make no revealment
of the manner in which this odious practice had been
exercised or of the extent to which it had been exer-
cised.--(An Hon. Member—" They can.") Yes, by a
general declaration ; but he would put it to the Speaker
whether it would be competent to the Committee, to
present that evidence to the House and have it printed.
The Right Hon. Baronet had alluded, with great clear-
ness to the part taken by the late Members of the Go-
vernment in the debate, and had alluded to what they
had done when in office. Now, he inferred from what had
transpired that all the Right Hon. Gentleman meant
to do was this :—to admit what he had done, not to
get out of it by saying that his conduct had not been
worse than theirs. He means to prove to the Committee
that if letters had been opened to this extent, it had been
done in a greater degree by his predecessors. Now,
would that be very satisfactory to the public ? It was
said that when persons of a certain description fell out
honest men got their own.—(A laugh.) Now, if it had not
been for the hostility manifested by the Members of the
late Ministry, they would have got no inquiry at
all. He was glad of the falling out of gentle-
men on both sides of the House, but he questioned
much if the Government would get their own. He
believed that if great care were not taken, the practice,
so much condemned, would be carried on under the au-
thority of the Secret Committee ; for, from the manner
in which the inquiry would be conducted, it would be
admitted that the power ought to exist ; and if the power
was to exist, who was to place a limit to it? He had
heard no reasons why there should be an exception to
the general rule of Committees in that House. The Com-
mittee was to inquire into the state of the law. Now,
what had transpired in another place with regard to the
law ? In that place they had the first legal authorities
in the kingdom, persons to whose judgment, in legal
matters, the whole public were willing to submit. They
had the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justice of England,
and some half-dozen ex-Chancellors. There they sat,
on both sides of the House, maintaining diametrically
opposite opinions. The Lord Chancellor main-
tained that one warrant was sufficient to open a
number of letters. The next Chancellor sup-
ported hies in that opinion. Another high legal
authority backed the Chief Justice in maintaining
that an express warrant was necessary in every case,
and notwithstanding the se differences, and the turmoil
between these high authorities, his Hon. Friend pro-
posed to put lawyers on the Committee. If the Lord
Chancellor did not know the law, where would they find
lawyers in this House who did ? If the lawyers on the
Committee were to debate the law of the question for a
month, they would not understand it at last. He ad-
vised Hon. Gentlemen to apply the principles of common
sense and common justice to what they found with regard
to the practice of opening letters, and what was the
statute-law of the realm, then the public might be satis-
fied with their decision. If they did not, nothing would
satisfy the public that this odious and detestable power
ought to be continued. A more odious and unfair prac-
tice was never exercised, or one more calculated to give
offence and annoyance. It was a remarkable thing that
the Right Hon. Baronet had not contradicted a single
allegation made by his Hon. Colleague. All the Right
lion. Gentleman stated was, that if he had done it, it had
been done by his predecessors. The Right
Honourable Gentleman did not deny that there
was a secret office—he did not deny that whole
bags of letters were sent into that office. his
Hon. Friend did not say they were opened there, but
from representations made to Members of that House,
Tie believed the practice had been carried to an enor-
mous extent. He believed the letters had been opened
again and again at the instigation of foreign Govern-
ments. These were the allegations, and such was the
impression on the public mind ; and he would ask, was
it not the duty of that House to meet the question at
once by appointing an open Committee? He was con-
vinced the public would not visit the Hon. Gentleman
with any more condemnation than they would the Hon.
Gentleman opposite ; and if it were proved that they
had done the same thing, so great would be the obloquy
.cast upon them, that the Right Hon. Baronet would
.escape, and, in that case he would be glad to have voted
for an open inquiry.
Mr. M'GEACHY supported the motion for a Com-
mittee, and was glad that the Government had consented
to grant it, as having been a sufferer from the reconside-
ration of the decisions of the House on two former occa-
sions—(Laughter)—he should have voted according to
his sense of duty as an independent Member without
regard to the Government.
stir. WALLACE agreed with the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, that it looked more like the two official sides
of the House coming to an arrangement, by which the
public should have the least possible information. lie
was convinced the public would not be satisfied with a
Secret Committee. lie really did not know what was
meant by a Secret Committee. Independent altogether
of the practice of opening letters for which warrants
were granted, the great body of the people believed
that the system was practised irrespective of those war-
rants. In consequence they had no confidence in the
Post-office. He had in his pockets letters sent to him
within the last few days—some of them with printed,
others with written, notices on their backs, saying it was
not worth putting seals upon them, to give the Govern-
ment the trouble c.f opening them. He wished to bee the
Post-office put upon the best footing. This Secret Com-
mittee would have no effect upon the people, and unless
the evidence were published there would be no use in
granting it all. It would be considered a mere delus'on,
a mere mode of getting rid of a disagreeable subject, and
which would be no use whatever. The Hon. Member
for Finsbury seemed to have the power of guiding both
sides of the House, and of compelling her Majesty's Go-
vernment to take what course he was pleased to direct,
and he hoped, should therebe any embarrassment in form-
ing a new Government, her Majesty would not forget
his Hon. Friend, and he hoped, following his usual
course, he would divide the House on this occasion.
Mr. MACAULAY said he should not have addressed
the House, had not some allusion been made to him in
his absence by the Right Hon. Baronet. If he under-
stood rightly what had been stated, the Right Hon.
Baronet had imputed to him, first a dereliction of his
duty as a sworn servant of her Majesty, and, secondly,
of having made a personal attack on the Right Hon.
Baronet himself. Now he denied that in any respect
he had ever violated the oath or the duty of a Privy
Councillor; mid he denied having divulged any secret
which had come to him in that capacity. He also de-
nied that in that character he had been informed of the
practices of the Post-office, and no one in that House was
more ignorant of those practices than himself. He de-
nied with equal confidence the charge of having made an
attack on the Right Hon. Gentleman. lie came down
to the House intending to express concisely a very
strong opinion on the state of the law. If he had de-
parted from that course, it vi as in consequence of the
Right Hon. Baronet having himself refused to give any
explanation of the principles on which he had acted.
That refusal was at variance with all his ideas of Minis-
terial responsibility; and there was a wide difference
between the conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet id this
respect and that of those who had preceded him. There
was never before any Minister called to account for the
exercise of that power except Sir R. Walpole, and he
stated immediately on what principle he had acted; but
this the Right Hon. Gentleman had repeatedly refused
to do. With respect to the appointment of a Com-
mittee ha saw no objection to its being a secret one.
He thought it likely that some secret connected with
their foreign department might transpire if the Com-
mittee were made public. But with respect to their
internal affairs, he thought the people might be allowed
to judge for themselves. The principal question the
Committee had to report upon was the state of the law,
and he should be much surprised if they did not report
the necessity for a great alteration in it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL briefly explained that he
had never intended to state that there should not be a
permissive exercise of that power.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS feared that the Committee,
composed as it was exclusively of Members of the two
great political parties, would not command the confidence
of the public. The public would not be convinced by
any report they might make, unless there were some in-
dependent Members appointed on that Committee. He
should, therefore, be inclined to move that Mr. Dun-
combe and Mr. Hume be added to that committee.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury, who had
made the charges, ought to have an opportunity of prov-
ing them ; and the Hon. Member for Montrose, in whom
the public had great confidence, and who was used to
conducting investigations, ought also to be a Member of
the Committee.
Mr. CURTEIS thought that the thanks both of the
British and the foreign public were due to the Hon.
Member for Finsbury for having brought forward this
subject.—(Cheers.) It was an indefensible and cruel act
to open the letters of foreigners, and to betray their con-
tents to their foreign Governments.—(Hear, hear.) In
the name of humanity, he thanked the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.—(Cheers.) Nothing could be more unjusti-
fiable than to reseal these letters after opening them. By
so doing, the Government rendered itself a party to any
crime which might be committed in consequence.—
(Hear, hear.) However severely the press might have
handled the Right Hon. Baronet, he believed that if it
bad not been for the independent press of this country,
they would never have stood, with regard to this ques-
tion, in the situation which they then occupied. The
oratory of the Hon. Member for Finsbury would have
been unavailing if he had not been aided by the press
of the country.. The Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath was not justified in speaking of the press in the
manner which he Lad done. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man's colleagues had manfully come forward to his aid,
and to share any obloquy which might attach to it. The
thanks of the country were due to the Hon. Member for
Finsbury for his conduct on this occasion.
Air. T. DUNCOMBE, in reply, observed that if he
possessed the power which the Hon. Member for
Greenock had attributed to him, of directing the Minis-
try, he should certainly have induced them to go further
than they had done. He felt convinced the public would
not be satisfied with the investigation which had been
proposed that night. He did not believe that there was
any necessity for havinc, the Committee a secret one, and
he did not believe that the country would be satisfied
woisthedt.herl:i'hoemitntiigthtetel viiohnic.hutahreonHe ohd
n.aGepnrtepleomsatnd haa d pro-
posed. p
Com-
mittee of Secrecy to inquire intto the state of the lew
directing the opening of letters at the General Post-
office, the modeterms,
he indi
did not
ht
think the
exercised.
underoe'Committee couldN
investigate the cusp of Mr. Mazzini and : thers, he
thought the words "the circumstances under s)-hich,and
the extent to which it has been exercised," ought to be
added to the motion, as under those words'
the Com-
mittee would hare the power of investigating the circum-
stances tinder which the letter of Mr. Mazzini and other
foreigners had been opened ; for one of the principal
charges against the Government was, that they had
opened the letters of foreign exiles at the instigation of
foreign Powers.
Sir R. PEEL said there would be no objection to the
words offernment dezired the fullest investigation.