The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-05 00:00:00

ii►IPI U 1 %L
PAR,LIANIENT.
&OUSE OF LORI)S,JuIy 4.
ROYA I. ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given to day,shortly 13,:fore 4 o'clock,
by Commission, to the following Bills : —The Sugar Duties
Hill, the Vinegar Dinka Bill, the lave Tra,J.e Treat'es Bill,
the Gold and Silver Wares Bill, Forestalling Abolition Bill,
the Night Poaching Bill, the A,saillts ( Ireland) Bill,
the Limitation of Actions (Ireland) Bill, the Leeds and
Bradford Rail way I iil the Manchester and Rossendale
Railway Bill, th, York and Scarborough Junction Railway
the Eastern Counties and Peterborough Railway Bill,
B
Salishury and South-Western Branch Railway Bill, the
Whitehaven and Marvport Railway Bill, the Chaster and
hHolyhead Railway Bill, the Edinburgh and Glasgow Extension
e Beaty Bill, the Shoreham and Chichester Railway Bill,
mall Devon Railway Bill, the South- Ea=tern Railway
and Folkestone Harbour Bill, the Stratford Railway and Har-
bour Bill, the Eilinbur,h Glasgow, and Stnrnawav Railway
111‘,'1.1: the Preston and Wyro Railway Bill,
Warehouiing the Coventry
Ili cr Works the Sheffield Gas Bill, the Manchester
Bill, the Manchester Police Bill, the Manchester
Magistrates Bill, the Manchester Infirmary Bill, the Man-
Chester Improvement Bill, the Nottingham Canal Bill, the
British Society Incorporation Bill, Southampton Imprnye-
liiient Bin, Canterbury Improvement Bill, Liverpool Fire
Bill, Canterbury Bill, Way na Iron C my Bill, the British
.;,°ll
van t
,-0
Bill. European Life Assurane,! Company's
"ill, and rario-us turnpike, drainage, estate, naturalisation, and
other
The Commissioners were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the
Lord Chancellor, and Lord Wharncliffe.
After the Commi-sion their Lordships resumed the argu-
ments in the ease of the Queen v. O'Connell and others.
The r Lordships re-assembled for Parliamentary business at
ttive 'clock, when the Loan Cita
scr.f.Loit. took his seat en
the woolsa k
The
resleyani'll"P of LONDON presented petitions from various
' —aptist, Independent, and Church of England Con-
reiiations GALL Dissenters' Chapels Bill,
Blueertlr,ofOWAY presented a petition from Olney,
the same effect. The Noble Earl also moved the
yo':I:doa nemetit .
of the third reading. of the Brothels Bill until
Prelate. week, consequence of the absence of a Right Rev.
The E
gergrai arl of AIOUNTCASHEL presented petitions from
against Presbyterian congregations in the north of Ireland
KaNtiesst the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Lor,siTß,Zrs from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
'me in fo lIPSELL presented two petitions from Aberdeedn,
Bill,
and our of the Presbyterian Mixed Marriages (Irelao )
Lo the other
rip,,"D against
pthe
enDissenters' Chapels Bill.
in ,ivour r "—ALE rested a petition from Yorkshire
of pretection to agriculture.
MOROCCO.
to PTuhte Earl of MI NTo gave nwice of his intention to-morrow
wha question to the Government, with a view of ascertain-
of AL,. Pther they had adopted any measures to send to the coast
interf'eco a naval force sufficient for the protection of British
"h• Perhaps some member of the Government would
“
i„n,_ierntioin eth Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty of his
n to put the question.
The m WAR IN AFRIC
arquis of CLANRICARDE gave notce of his in-
ern merit, flovtl" to put a question te some Member oft her Majesty's
part of
On Monday, as to the war pending in the western
Africa.

Lordt W BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.
rni;RHA _ .
NCLIFFE brought up the report of the Gmn
•
" aPPOinteri to inquire with respect to this Bill. The
CI, olmttt
us ee reported that it was a measure for which it was
ual to have the consent of the Crown before they proceede
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from Glasgow
against the Dissenters' Chapel Bill.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented similar petitions, the
:
,s"°The LORD CHANCELLOR, on the application o
rs-11 of London, fixed the consideration of the Lords' Amend-
..." to the Dissenters' Chapel B 11, for Monday week.
THE STATE TRIALS.
Minste Th Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from West-
e
"eteise her pr, praying that the House would address the Queen, to
r rofi tive on behalf of Mr. O'Connell and others.
,t„ POST-OFFICE.—OPENING LETTERS.
;errorsine Earl of RADNOR then rose for the purpose of moving
ommittee of their Lordships upon the subject of opening
by the Government and the Post-office. Nith-
standing what had taken place in the other House ofotw Par-
liament, he felt bound to bring forward the subject, which
inereased in importance every day. A Committee of their
kiordships' Huse would have more weight than one
th House of Commons, because their Lordships examined
neesses upon oath, which they did not in the House of Com-
!Monsbli Puc thought that their letters were held slued, but the re-
toelation made in that House had opened the eyes of the public
what was going on. From that revelation it appeared that
1.
twas the practice on certain occasions is the Secretary of
Aate'ssoffice to open letters. It seemed doubtful from the
ejedicis, whether there was sufficient authority to justify this pro-
ng• It had been stated to be one of the original objects
:a the establishment of the Post-office, but though it
ass mentioned in the preamble of the ordinance, it
~,:e not stated as the main object. The Act of
e7,!een Anne had been referred to, but there was nothingd
the
.._r,in that or any of the subsequent Acts, which authorise
I°, ',;_cretary tmf State to detain and open letters. Although
.i'ss:droitted that such a power was assumed, that was a totally
ar,mu
.rent thine.
State to s from authority being given to the Secretary of
where the issue his warrant. He would like to kno,v
to be to": aothority was to be found. He believed it was not
et.list'neetildo,j,4 any statute, and the Post-office had not been in
He had disigs enough to bring it under the common
; - 11, and sm,
''lstice of the -PPlaing that the Secretary of State was a
had decided ths.lite, aee for the whole country. Lord Campbell
of try, that was not the case, except in the instance
he mils," aad one of his rounds, for stating that was, that
°lit' -ifmnothteaud,inhineister an oath, and therefore could not com-
p° wer had he to issue was
to warrant a'jns?tice Itnf wasthe said that whathe
possessed it by usage. The Noble Lord then read a judgment
of the Earl of Istansfiealrd'us on of showing that thepoint, for the purpose
thoifs
usage did not apply.
The No le Lord then quoted the opinion of Lord Camden as
to the seizure of papers. He said' letters were the dearest pro-
would men
Possessed, and so far from enduring seizure they
Would scarcely bear inspection. He did not deny that cases
Night arise in which thspowr would be necessary for the
fos,f,ertyi.of the state. But to anticipate such a case was, he thought,
better 4',1 proceeding. If te litheo were exercised, it was
it was done on direct responsibility of the
Minister who might apply to Parliament openly for an indem-
ni) ; but he did not think that any case could justify the d
taming of letters of foreigners. H. e thought it was a breach
°{ has -,it l'ty against which his mind, and he believed that of
tee public, quite' revolted. What had they to do with the in-
rnal affairs ofother countries? If a foreigner came to this
so
..
untry and did net violate its laws, he thought he ought to
have the benefit of the Constitution. He again bore
testimony to the high moral character of Mr. Mazzini,
'\:,11", he admitted, was an enthusiast in the cause of
"nertv, but stated that he was priticiplily occupied in
literary pursuits. Was the dissemination of liberal
opinions a crime in England ? Himself a descendant of
opinions
who lied to England for refuge. With respect
to M. Stolztnann, his letters were never opened till the
arrival Of the Emperor of Russia. Was there an
y yngor, he would ask, of any of the Poles assassinating
e
!stEmperor ? Mr. Mazzini had been very active in
ablishing schools for the education of the poor Italian
whom, n dou)t their Lordshi priest
saw wandering
"Stu, the streets of the Metropolis. The priest attached to the
tioartlinian Embassy raised a cry against him because there was
,reli,gious instruction. Bet if that were even so, it was
Thee'
than that they should be left to run about the streets.
Thee greatest moral evil would be produced by this practice.
4tiaY had heard of the conscience of the State, but he thought
,;11_t_was nonsense when applied to sects and religions. But
f:ii overnment ought to take care not to set the example
essi selmutl, treachery, and forger Cheers. On one oc-d
f., 0:1, a person from whom he received a begging letter had
do his seal. Was not that what the Government ha
There was no more of falsehood, forgery, or treachery
in the one ease than in the other. It
.was so felt by. everybody.
Re was 1 I
this .g a' to see the manner in which the French looked on
thati°ll"t• NI. Guizot.declared in the Chamber of Deputies
thatnetters were sacred in that country. He felt ashamed
Poke°fle of the Noble Lords opposite could say that. Isle_
Hordwarmly on this subject, because lie felt warmly. net,
their Lordships would now take the first step to pu
fls °lf' to this practice. He asked for a Select Committee tn.
111((!r re into the system of opening and detaining letters, ati?d,
ht, e Partieolarly into the circumstances under which
_b.
Ts of Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Stolzmann had been open
s, hi.e Duke of WELLINGTON fully admitted that thisre.
into at ion had at last assumed a shape that should be indritiul d when
,i,lut. the law and the practice should be inquire to.
fraud tne Noble Lord attributed to the Government treachery,that
it ;bo' and faleity—(Cries of Hear, hear)—it was time
tl t "be inquired into. But he thought they_ shouldu
then Z? into a rovinms inquiry of the description pointed out 1
tehl'ic Lord's snpeech, to inquire whether this man's or the
'Noble man's, letters had been opened. A grea ,
t part of the
law, 4)"-I a speech was direeLed entirely to the repeal of the.
s„,„' rid maintained that it should be immediately and totally
esteltetl. The Noble Lord might be
,leasta'ning that opinion ; ,man it was an opon i
quite justified in
hhe would not find yto agree with him';
that the same time, he must say that, if he thought
in the tons was exercised, or ever had been exercised,
to. his manner referred to by the Noble Lord in some parts
priva ' gPeeeh—that was to say, that it was applied for
the tpeo Purposes arid for private interests, stet not for
"Y thatrPn'e of promoting the public benefit—he should
Public
oouri.ffoesertrhlewd i tthb slawfr.,, ought to , be_ repealed and
,phuet
haronadeenadt
grounds f, s,k ...beers.) out. tue .aw goo
icaowt:tirntitutt,e-eo-rue:iitie.itPtltoblie interest, and the exercise of the power it
he used on no other grounds than those o
He had no objection to the appointment of ae
o inquire into the law and the practice under the
that 'lt he objected to the appointment of a Committee,.
the
letters °lmi.se to inquire into the circumstances of opening h
tw, s- particular individuals. He believed the letters of the
open 'othviduals alluded to were opened ; but the law was
who to them—(Cries of " Oh, oh !")—and the person
e less
11e could OPened theta was guilty of a misdemeanor,t ma-
-1 would not follow Lord into his arguments as to
CT,..Power of the Secretary of State to issue general warrants.
eSecretary of State was in this instance the officer of the
was reign—the officer of the Government. The Post-office
see_ one of the departments of the Government, and the
of „retary nf State had a right to send an order to the officert
s, thats dpartment, which he was bound to obey. The Ac
''
lettersearliament was precise in that particular—it enacted that
efiie were to be delivered as they were put into the post-
Warre' except in certain cases, one of which was where to
b , ,nt for the detaining and opening such letters was issued , 3 tile Secretary of State. There could be no doubt about the
Jaw 1
Ziabl: . was true, there was no express authority by law to
ftite the Secretary of State to issue the warrant—( Hears
at!2—but lot had the authority, acting as an officer of her
ms, J 'tY's Government, to call upon the Post-master
mutt
earrY
into execution: The quest ion
amid , always turn upon that particular instance,
1,: he would say, on the part of his Right Hon. Friend, that
ail s, a member of her Majesty's Gov, rnment, was willing to
haacre the responsibility with his Right Hon. Friend. No act
beent been performed by his Right Hon. Friend but what had
re.,. Performed for the purpose of promoting the public lute-
...'l The Noble Lord had talked of the exempt ion of foreigners,
ra had talked of a breach of hospitality ; but if foreigners,
I',.,iniciled here, acted in a manner contrary to the interests of
lkeountry, were they not guilty of a breach of hospitality ?
allow' arm he Was it fit that the Secretary of State should
0.. aets to be done which might inflict the calamities of war
co" Powers with which we were friendly ? The policy of this
into' uii!etry was to maintain peace everywhere, because it was the
sn at of this country that the world should remain at peace,
oi)s,isettuitfhf.o,,rheeigners fitted nut expeditions fur Corfu or Malta to
peace of Italy, would it be contended that they were
o,4muilty of a breach of the laws of hospitality, and that they
e ti. not to be interfered with as acting contrary to the interests
n.: this country? A few years ago, an expedition had been fitted
out here against a neighbouring country, which was all
tlt,t, successful. No-.v would it not hare been the duty of the
ts lyernment, if they had received the smallest intimation of
w"e expedition, to interfere to prevent it ? All foreigners here
sere subject to the municipal law of the country, and were
iurcu!sed to act in conformity with the interests of the country.
, „toe Government knew that foreigners were preparing an Petition in in this country for the invasion of a foreign country,