The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,- FEBRUARY 224 1845.

adversary ; they met him open the footing of an adversary. It
was compe,ent, and within the course of fair Parliamentary
warfare, for the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland to
propose that amendment for the consideration of the House.
The Noble Lord had felt that the motion as proposed by the
I on. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury you d not be gene-
rally entertained. It had been condemned by several Hen.
Members; it was subjected to the condemnat:on of the Hon.
Member for Sheff eld, who, in a meat admirable speech, which,
from the general spirit in which it was breathed, it was refresh-
ing to hear in such a debate, had stated that it was impossible
for him to agree to the motion of the lion. Gentleman the
Memb.,r for Finsbury. The Noble Lord the Member for Sun-
derland felt it was necessary to bring his straggling party to-
gether. He felt it was necessary to raise a standard under
which they might rally. Quite consistent with Parliamentary
tactics, the Noble Lord bad framed an amendment, which, it
appeared, was in consonance with the feelings of the Hon.
Gentlemen who generally voted with him. It was probeble
that the fugitives would return to their standard, and, uniting
with the Noble Lord, they would no doubt form themselves
into another body. Br.t the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Shrewsbury it was not expected would gave his support to the
Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. He (the Solicitor-
General) said it was not expected, b -cause it would he in the
recollection of the House that when the Honourable Gentleman
and his .Soble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury rose together,
there was a general call from the other side of the House for the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, to whom his Noble Friend the
Member for Liverpool was compelled to give way. Now,
el hough he admitted the talent and ingenuity of the Hon.
Gentleman the Member fur Shrewsbury, yet, assuredly, he sus-
pected it was not entirely to enjoy the exhibition of such talent
and ingenuity that induced Hon. Members on the other side of
the Howse to be so ready to receive him with open arms; and
they were tot deceived in their expectations. The Honourable
Member for Shrewsbury supported, with all his heart, the
amendment which was proposed by the Noble Lord ; but he
declared that he supported the motion with no hostile
feeling towards his Right Honourable Friend the Secretary
of State for the Home Department. He regretted to
say, however, that the tone and manner of expression
of that Honourable Gentleman strongly denied his decla-
ration.—(Cheers.)He had been at a loss to conceive what
it was that actuated the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. The
Hon. Member, however, was kind enough to explain this. The
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had told them that his Right
lion. Friend had invariably treated him with courtesy. At
first he was at a loss to account for the course pursued by the
Hon. Member for Shrewsbury, but it now appeared to him
that it was perfectly clear, and he could, therefore, understand
how it was that Hon. Members on the other side of the House
were so completely prepared for the exhibition of feeling on
the part of the Hon. Member.--(Cheers.) Now the Hon.
Member talked largely against one portion of the question,
and he was followed by his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Member for Bath. The Honourable and Learned
:timber for Bath was pleased to address him
as the highest legal authority on common law, by which he
presumed his Hon. and Learned Friend meant the judge who
presided in the highest court of common law in this kingdom,
which was nut exactly the same as his office. To-night the
question of law hacl been revived partly by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Newport, who acted as a sort of pleader
to his Noble and Learned Friend. The Member for Kinsale
stood upon his own ground, but his Hon. and Learned Friend
the Member for Kinsale had attached himself to the legal
ground which constituted the principal part of his speech.
But it occurred to him, when the observation was made, that the
legal consideration of the matter had not the slightest bearing
on the question, and he confes .ed he still entertained the same
opinion. He was, however, placed in a situation of very great
embarrassment and difficulty on this subject. He felt that he
was entering upon irrelevant matter, which did not at all re-
late to the motion or the amendment which was before the
Ilouse ; but for fear it should be supposed that he was agreeing
to the law which had been laid down, he felt it to be his duty
to attempt to answer some questions which had been raised
during the debate, which were quite foreign to the question un-
der discussion. Now, at the same time, he must say, that there
was nothing more unsatisfactory than the legal opinions which
were expressed by gentlemen of his profession in the course of
a debate in that House. However strongly he might be im-
pressed with the view of the law bearing upon the question
which they were considering, still it might be an impossibi-
lity to get rid of the feeling which must exist amongst some
Hon. and Learned Members that he was speaking under a bias
which warped his jAgment, and prevented his coming to a
sound and honest conclusion. —( Hear, hear.) But still he
must not shrink from the performance of a public duty which
had been imposed on him ; and the House would permit him
to say that he felt a very serious responsibility for every opinion,
on a point of law, which he might be called upon to express.
But, nevertheless, he would not shrink from the responsibility
which devolved upon him. Now, in regard to the opinion ex-
pressed by the Noble Lord, he would, in the first place, beg
leave to remark upon the statements—that the warrants were
not sanctioned by law, that general warrants was the course
which the law recognised. Now, in the House of Lords, the
Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Denman held a
different opinion, but he must admit that Lord Campbell dif-
fered from the other Noble Lords. The three other Noble
Lords have concurred in the opinion that a general warrant
might be issued to open the letters of a particular in-
dividual, within a certain period. Lord Campbell,
however, was of opinion that it required a specific
warrant of each particular case of opening letters. lie ad-
mitted, also, that the Noble Lord who presided in the Court of
Queen's Bench appeared afterwards to have changed his opinions,
still the conclusion which the Noble Lord had come to was very
vague and unsatisfactorily expressed. Now, his Noble and
Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale was the only member
of the legal profession who had argued the question of law, hut
he was afraid he and his Hon. and Learned Friend were
not likely to agree upon this subject, nor was he likely to
make his Hon. and Learned Friend a convert to his opinions.
What said his Hon. and Learned Friend ? He said be cared
not for usage. " Give me," said his Hon. and Learned
Friend, " from the foundation of Rome to the present day,
and I will not sanction such a practice as this." Well, his
Hon. and Learned Friend forgot an expression which he used
in the course of his argument. At the end of his speech the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, adverting to the peculiar ques-
tion bearing upon the Hon. Member, expressed himself thus :
" Why, what objection can there be to exhibiting these warrants ?
Let them only produce the legal warrant and it would be an
answer to the question." His Hon. and Learned Friend was,
however, mistaken in that; for they could draw no conclusion
in that respect. His Hon. and Learned Friend had spoken of
general warrants. Now did his Hon. and Learned Friend
know the history of generai warrants? Now he would be aware
that general warrants had existed since between 1694 and 1763
without an Act of Parliament ; yet in the latter year it
was decided that the issue of general warrants was
made legal by usage. A complaint had been made that
there were no lawyers in the Committee appointed to inquire
into this subject. Now, in the Committee of the House of
Lords were there no, the two ex-Lord Chancellors—Cotten-
ham and Brougham ? It was said that the power was not con-
(erred by any statute law. True, the report of the House of
Lords said that the Act of Anne gave no power to the Secre-
tary of State to detain or open letters, but if his Hon. and
Learned Friend had read two other lines in the report he would
have found that the power was justified by the fact
that up to that period the right had been fully
recognised. His Hon. and Learned Friend had declared
that he had not been able to find any authority to justify this
power; but as the power, when exercised, was seldom known
to the world, it was not likely that many authorities would exist
on the subject. It was important that they should have evidence
of a clear and conclusive nature upon the subject, and with the
permission of the House he would just refer for one moment to
the statute of Anne. In the 40th section they would find it
provided that no person should be allowed to detain or open
letters entrusted to the care of the Post-office, unless authorised
by a warrant under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries
of State. Now in the present reign all the Acts relating to
the Post-office were repealed, but they were afterwords conso-
lidated in another Act. This Aet required the postmaster to
make a particular declaration, which the House would remem-
ber had received the especial sanction of Parliament. The de-
claration was in these terms—" I do hereby solemnly and sin-
cerely deelare that I will net wittingly or willingly open or delay
contrary to my oath, any letter or anything sent by post which
shall come to my hands by reason of my employment in the
Pest-office, except by the consent of the person or persons to
whom they are, or it is directed, or by the express warrant in
writing under the hand of one of her Majesty's principal Secre-
taries of State." A subsequent Act, which cancelled all former
Acts, contained the same expressions as to the detention or
opening of letters in the absence of an express
warrant of one of the principal Secretaries of State.
Now he certainly did not understand what was meant by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Shrewsbury last night, when
lie said that no power of opening or detaining letters was con-
ferred by statute upon the Secretary of State. The Hon.
Member said that the object of the Acts of Parliament was to
prevent any clerk, sub-agent, or subordinate person in the
Post-office from opening or detaining any letter; it was not
intended to give any power to the Secretary of State to autho-
rise any such opening or detention.—(" Hear, hear," from
Mr. Jervis.) Would his Hon. and Learned Friend who
cheered this position be kind enough to state why the Secretary
of State was referred to at all ? If the sole object were to pre-
vent clerks from opening or detaining letters, why was it not
stated ?—( Hear.) His Hon. and Learned Friend might dis-
cover a solution of the difficulty which did net occur to himself,
but he could not understand, on the assumption to which he
had referred, why the exception should have been introduced,
—( Hear, hear.) That exception appeared to him to show
that the Secretary of State had a power, under certain cir-
cumstances, which would render legal the acts of the subor-
dinate agent.—( Hear, hear.) 'Well, then, what was the result
of the whole of this question? He (the Solicitor-General)
ventured to give it as his deliberate opinion that, this being a
power which was exercised at common law before any of the
statutes existed, those statutes, though they did not confer the
power, because it already existed, recognised and sanctioned
its exercise by the Secretary of State.—(Hear, hear.) 'He
would now proceed to consider for a moment how this
matter affected the privileges of Members of Par-
liament. Now, he knew that this was a much more
delicate question ; and knowing that upon this subject some
lion. Members were peculiarly sensitive, he was afraid that
he should incur their censure when he ventured to say, that it
was his firm conviction that Members of that House pos-
sessed no greater privilege, as regarded the power of the
Secretary of State over their letters, than any other indivi-
dual in the country.—( Hear, hear, and cheers from the
Ministerial benches.) He inferred this from the terms of
the often-adverted-to resolution of 1735. Complaints having
been made in that case, that certain letters had been
opened and read by the clerks of the Post-office, the House
resolved that it was a high infringement of the privileges of
Members, to open or look into any letter without an
express warrant in writing, under the hand of one
of the principal Secretaries of State.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland contended that
this power ought not to exist with regard to the letters of
Members, because it might be perverted to political or party
purposes. He (the Solicitor-General) did not reason from
the possibility of abuse against the exercise of this power, but
only that there ought to be great caution and care in its exer-
cise. If any Secretary of State were to pervert the power to
political or party purposes, he would justly incur the severest
animadversion of the House. But then, it should be remem-
bered, that the Committees of both Houses had reported that
neither by the Right Honourable Gentleman nor by
his predecessors had the power ever been used for
any purpose whatever inconsistent with the welfare of
the country.—(Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to the ex-
pediency of continuing this important and delicate power,
though that was not a question which was- necessarily in-
cluded in the one before the House, as far as ho could gather
the state of feeling on the subject, he thought there seemed
to be a general feeling that the power ought to exist, though
it should be guarded by certain restrictions and conditions.
( Hear, hear.) He was afraid that if that power were to be
its the smallest degree useful, it was impossible to impose any
checks upon its exerciie. There was, he believed, no alterna-
tive between the utter abolition of the power, and leaving it to
the discretion of the high authority in whom it was vested by
the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) He now passed to that
which was more immediately the subject for the consideration
of the House. In the course of the last session, the Hon.
Member for Finsbury presented two petitions to the House
from foreigners who complained that their letters had been
opened ; and the complaint was directed particularly against
his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The state-
ment came upon the House with most startling effect. Many
lion.mvibers were not previously aware of the existence of the
power. His he,. Hon. Friend was placed in a most diffi-
'-e. lie felt himself bound by his
cult and embarrassing posici,.....
official duty to remain perfectly silent Crider WI..

putation. It had been said on the other side of
the House that the Right Honourable Gentle-
man might have prevented all that discussion by
a single word. He might. Why was not that word ut-
tered ? Because an imperative an overruling sense of duty
prevented its utterance.--( Hear, hear.) But there were Mem-
bers of that House who knew the position in which his Right
lion. Friend was placed ; they themselves had been entrusted
with the same delicate office ; yet they did not take any step to
remove the odium which rested upon him. Had they been
silent upon the subject, even that might have been some exte-
nuation ; but they had not exhibited their usual manliness and
generosity by comieg forward to relieve the Right lion. Baronet
from his position. A great popular exeitement prevailed on the
subject. He believed the Noble Lord and the Right Hon.
Baronet suspected that his Right Hon. Friend's lips would be
sealed; they were hardly prepared for his coming forward to
court inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) Yet in a speech, the manly,
calm, and distinguished composure of which was calculated to
make the deepest inspreseion on the House, his Right Hon.
Friend declared that he thought the time had now arrived when
the whole truth should be known ; that if the power were not to
be regarded as utterly worthless, the whole of the circum-
stances counected with its exercise by himself must be dis-
closed. It was at length decided that there should be a
Select Committee to investigate the matter. There was a
preponderance in the Committee of those who were opposed to
his Right Hon. Friend ; and if the lion. Member for Finsbury
were excluded from it as the accuser, he stood in precisely
the same position as other Hon. Members of that House.
His lion. and Learned Friend the Member for Kinsale re-
gretted that the Committee had had no power to report con-
cerning the law on this subject. His Hon. and Learned
Friend would forgive him for saying that he would have done
much better if he had read the terms in which the Committee
was appoin'ed, instead of employing himself by diving into his
books for authorities; because, if his Hon. and Learned Friend
had referred to the beginning of the report, he would have
found that such power had been given. This was also the opis
nion of the Right Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Edinburgh, for he had said, " There can be no doubt
:hat the intention is that this Secret Committee shall
state to the House, not particular cases, but the general
principles on which the Post-office and other authorities have
acted." The authority, therefore, of the Committee was
ample and comprehensive ; and how had they performed their
du. y ? Why, they had called before them all the persons living
who had held the office of Secretary of State, and they had also
called two Noble Lords who had filled the office of Lord-Lieu-
tenants for Ireland. The Committee called before them every
person who was calculated to afford them the slightest in-
formation on the subject, and they came to the conclusion,
which he would venture to say every generous and dispas-
sionate mind would also come to, that of a perfect and com-
plete acquittal of the Right lion. Baronet.—(Cheers.) Indeed
he (the Solicitor-General) believed that in some respects the
Right Hon. Baronet had improved on the practice of his pre•
decessors. The lion. Member for Finsbury complained that
witnesses which he himself produced were not examined by the
Committee. Those witnesses were not examined, as the Hon.
Member himself chose to impose conditions with respect to
that examination which were quite inconsistent with the duty
he had to perform. The witnesses who were examined before
that Committee gave their evidence freely and openly, under the
impression that the evidence taken by the Committee would be
secret. Yet now the Hon. Member for Montrose proposed
that the whole of the evidence should be published. He now
came to the Hon. Member for Finsbury and the motion which
he had presented to the House, and which was now under dis-
cussion, together with the amendment of the Noble Lord the
Member for Sunderland. The motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury was very limited in its character, as it only extended
to a period since 1840. It was obviously intended as a personal
attack on the Right Hon. Baronet, and was trade with a view
to continue towards him that odium which must attach to the
power, if it were to attach at all, of opening letters at the Post-
office. It was very hard to overcome a prejudice which had ob-
tained possession of the public mind. The Hon. Member for
Finsbury knew this, and it was to increase that prejudice that
the present motion had been brought forward. Did the amendment
of the Noble Lord improve the matter? No. For if the motion was
personal before, it would become ten times more so by the
amendment of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member for
Finsbury had said that the Noble Lord had taken the matter
out of his hands, and it had become, as the Hon. Gentleman
said, a personal matter between the Government and himself.
Why, it was from the first a personal attack, and it remained
a personal attack. It would appear that the power of opening
letters had been exercised by .1\ oble Lords and Right Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, and he (the Solicitor-General) would
put it to them how they would have voted if they had been
called upon to answer for the exercise of that power in some
particular instance? He would call upon them, then, to sym-
pathise with his Right Hon. Friend in the situation in which
he was placed. He trusted that there were generous spirits
in that House, who would feel that after the verdict had been
pronounced in favour of the Right Hon. Baronet, he ought
not to be called again to the bar of public opinion, and he
called upon them to resist the amendment of the Noble Lord
and the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.—(Cheers. )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose and said-1 feel,
Sir, that I need make no apology to the House for addressing
them on the present occasion. But the Noble Lord, the Mem-
ber for Tyrone has thought proper to say, that I am to be
blamed because I did not take an earlier oi portunity of address-
ing the House on the motion of the Pion. Member for Finsbury.
Sir, I felt no such necessity. With respect to the question
itself, there had been a Committee nvointed last year, which
had received evidence from various secretaries of State, and
before which Committee the Right lion. Gentleman opposite
produced the warrants of various Secretaries of State who had
preceded him. I was examined before that Committee, and I
gave as fully as my knowledge and recollection would serve me,
an account of what I had done when I had the honour of filling
the office of Secretary of State. Such being the case there
could be no inference that I had not taken part in transactions
similar to those of which the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary of State has been accused ; that I had signed warrants
directing the opening of letters, and had acted as my
predecessors and successors had done. But, Sir, I did rise last
rtiheeo
dd e bt ah tee ,
Aainedm ibt
ewr a sfooy
rn
s obnyd ye
rolua rn
dd eacdi
sniiognhtthinattlmseycNouorbsleeoFf
dressed the House.—( Cheers.) I feel no difficulty either in
stating my views of what the practice is, which practice I have
followed, and how far I think the conduct of the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite is to be justified, and how far there is still
wanting an explanation with regard to a part of that conduct.
With respect to the law of the case, I am not going to give any
opinion further than this, that if the law does not intend that
the Secretary of State should exercise this power, that then, to
unlearned persons, the Act of Queen Anne, and the Act of
Victoria, must be looked upon as only traps.—(Loud cheers. )
When I see that by the Act of Anne and the Act of her present
Majesty the clerks of the Post-office are not to open letters
unless by an express warrant in writing, signed by one of the
principal Secretaries of State, what must I, an unlearned
persons, conclude but, that without that warrant, such a pro-
ceeding would not take place. And if I am tow told that there
are persons of very high authority who say that such a pro-
ceeding is. illegal altogether, I then say you should have
made your law clear. You should have placed clearly on
the statute-book some law, which it was easy to do, prohibit-
ing all persons from opening letters of any party whatsoever;
then no person filling that office could doubt what duty he
had to do. But Sir, I wish those persons who tell us that
the whole proceedings under these warrants are illegal, would
explain exactly what was the purpose of that Act, and
what was the exact position of those voluntary post-offices
which the Queen's post-office at that time was intended to
supersede? What would have been the case in law of a
person in the City of London, who had engaged to send
letters all over the country, and it was found that some of
those letters had been opened by him, and afterwards trans-
mitted? How far his conduct would be punishable—whether
he would be subject to a criminal proceeding, of which I
cannot find any notice in the books on criminal law—to
what civil proceedings he would be liable—what would be
the nature of the civil action, and in what manner he
would be punished ? Upon that question I profess to give
no opinion whatever. But if the whole proceeding under
these warrants is illegal—if we live under a state of the law
not :hitherto understood, I wish that question were cleared
up for the benefit of those who act upon what is pre-
sumed to be the law of the country. Then as to
the practice. There is no doubt that when, last year,
it was discovered, owing to the questions of the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Finsbury, letters had been opened in
the Post-office, that great indignation was expressed, and that
a most undue share of that public indignation was directed
against the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Home
Department.—(Hear, hear.) For my own part, I can only
say, with my Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that, as
far as I can see, the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman has
been like that of his predecessors in office, and that the power
was used generally for the purpose of defeating con-
spiracies and preserving the peace of the country.—( Hear. )
When my Hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield says that he
counted the number of warrants issued for three years pre-
ceding the accession of the Right Hon. Gentleman to office,
and that they amounted to forty, while for three years that the
Right lion. Gentleman was in office the number was forty-
four, he concluded, rationally and justly as I think, that such a
difference showed no material alteration in his conduct as Se-
cretary of State, and was no such violent exercise of power as
called for any censure on the Right Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches.) But with regard to the
power itself, when I heard persons, moved by that indigna-
tion which affects the public, say that no letters ought to be
opened which pass through the Post-office, I own I felt great
doubt whether it would be safe and wise to act upon that
view.—( Hear.) It may be that such power should be
scarcely ever exercised—it may be, that those who preceded
the Right lion. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman himself, exercised it mere frequently
than was necessary, and, in some instances erroneously, but,
on the other hand, to declare by Act of Parliament or resolu-
tion that any person concerned in a conspiracy against the
State, or in levying civil war against the Queen, should be
entitled to the use of the public Post-office, that I contend
would be a dangerous course for the security of the public
peace.—( Cheers.) And you would take away this power
from the Secretary of State! I hope, before you do so, that
you will well consider what means are left to the Secretary of
State for the preservation of the public peace. —( Hear,
hear.) We all know that not a great many years ago, when
Loid Sidmouth held the office of Secretary of State, he
thought it a fair and legitimate means of preserving the public
peace, to employ the instrumentality of spies. My belief is
that those spies more readily cause than prevent those risings
and tumults which they are employed to detect—
( Hear, hear)—and that persons have been convicted for con-
duct which they pursued in consequence of the instigations
of those spies. I consider the employment of spies not only
objectionable, but dangerous and contrary to the spirit of a free
country.—( Loud cheers.) But when you say that you will
enact that letters are not to be opened, will you also enact that
there shall be no employment of spies ?—( Hear, hear.) At
present that rests in the discretion of the Secretary of State.
I take a view of this subject which induces me to think that
spies ought not, in the most dangerous state of the country, to
be engaged.—(Bear, hear.) And when a Chartist, who took
a chief lead in the counsels of those who were called Physical
Force Chartists, offered me his services to detect the designs of
his fellow-Chartists, I refused his offer.—( Loud cheers.) I be- I
lieve that the employment of spies does not at present exist, but '1
you have no sanction by law from that service—you have no
declaration on the part of the House—you have no enactment
which secures you against the employment of spies, or that the
secret service money at the disposal of the Secretary of State ;
may not be used in that way for the service of the State ; and
if you enact that there shall be no opening of letters, can you
be secure, can you be certain, that the Secretary of State,
anxious for the preservation of the public peace, feeling him-
self responsible for its maintenance, will not have recourse to
those means, which I think far more objectionable than the
opening of letters which may be sent through the Post-office.
—( Hear, hear.) A spy is a man who goes amongst persons
and instigates them to commit acts, which but for him
they might not have committed. When you open a letter
you find the designs of a man expressed by himself
at all events,—( Hear.) Such being the general state of the
case, a complaint was made last year of the opening of a letter,
which did not appear to be justified by the Secretary of State
upon any grounds, either of a defence of the country from in-
IHear, hear.) That
aenceamsey7efeced to with some
was terns]t danger,ie eas
e orof fromA
fAar
af oz
pleasantry by the Noble Lord, the Member for Tyrone, but
which seems to me to be worthy of the gravest; if not the most
melancholy reflection.—( Cheers.) As far as we can make
out the history of this case, it is as follows :—lnformation was
given, or, rather, a suggestion was made, that Mazzini was at
the head of a party which sought to overturn the existing Go-
vernment of Italy, and especially the Government of the Papal
State. In consequence of this inforrnatiou the letters of Max.

zini were opened at the Post-office. The substance of the
information so obtained was conveyed to a foreign Government.
There can be little doubt that that was the Austrian Govern-
ment. Now, without being certain of the fact, it seems, by
what we have heard, that the two 13andieras, the sons of
the Austrian Admiral, being et Corfu, wrote to Mazzini that
they had formed a project for the invasion of the Papal States.
It would appear, as he inferred from what has been stated, that
the names of those persons were communicated to the Aus-
trian Government ; for, observe, it is carefully stated in the
report of the Secret Committees of the Commons and Lords
that the names cf persons residing within the power of those
Governments were not nut communicated.—( Hear, hear. )
Those persons were residing at Corfu, without the power of
the Austrian Government. The next thing which we hear is,
that there were persons who visited the Bandieras at Corfu,
and that in the expectation that they would be joined by a
large portion of the people, they set out, twenty-two in num-
ber, armed or unarmed (for with regard to that there ap-
pears to be some difference of opinion), and landed
on the coast of Calabria. The persons who excited them to
this enterprise accompanied them, and, as soon as they landed,
those persons went over to the authorities who procured
the defeat of their attempt, and they were soon after executed.
—( Hear, hear.) Such is this melancholy history.—( Cheers.)
Sir, I cannot think this affords any favourable precedent for
opening letters at the suggestion of a foreign Power, for the
purpose of preventing war.—( Hear, hear.) I do not believe
that is a legitimate purpose for which this power ought to he
exercised.—(Hear, hear.) I am far from saying that a Minister
of the Crown should not exercise that peer with a view and
intentiou to the public welfare—( Hear, hear)—still less do I
say that the Right Honourable Gentleman is peculiarly re-
sponsible for the exercise of that power.—( Hear.) On the
contrary, I think the Foreign Secretary of State and the First
Lord of the Treasury—in fact, the Cabinet and Government—
quite as responsible for such an extraordinary exercise of power
as the Right Hon. Gentleman—(Cheers)—and if any odium is
peculiarly directed against him, I think that odium is unjust, and
that whether blame is to be attributed to the act (and I con-
sider that great blame is to be attributed to it), it should be
attributed to the Government collectively, and not to the in-
dividual Member of it who signed the warrant in this par-
ticular case.—(Cheers.) But, Sir, the result is, that a foreign
Government, by threatening that troops should be marched,
by making a threat which would be executed—by holding out
fears of an insurrection which was not likely to be of a per-
manent character, had influence sufficient to induce the
Government of this country to inspect the cor-
respondence of a stranger residing here, and who
was residing here in the belief that if he obeyed the
laws of this country—if he did everything that a loyal subject
of the Queen wisuld have done—showing himself a faithful and
loyal subject—he would not have been molested.—( Hear,
hear.) We have seen the consequences of this particular
case; but if you enforce this as a precedent—if you allow the
Emperor of Russia—( Hear, hear)—with regard to the Poles—
the Emperor of Austria with regard to the whole of the Ita-
lian States, and the Queen of Spain with regard to the Spanish
exiles—to put in force the power of exercising a statute given
for other purposes—to act against the exiles residing here, this
country will no longer be that happy refuge which it was in-
tended to be—that common refuge for mankind which it was
designed it should be—( Hear, hear)—but exiles will hardly
come to your shores as likely to lead them into danger from
which they might otherwise have escaped.—(Cheers.) There
was in this part of the case no further inquiry required. I would
not be disposed to vote for the motion on that ground, for I
think the inquiry has been sufficient, and that the reports of
the Secret Committees tell sufficiently the facts of the case ;
but I would be ready to agree to a resolution that the power
was not rightly exercised in this case, and that such an exer-
cise of it ought not to be drawn into a precedent.—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, the other case to which the Hon. Gentleman al-
ludes, is the case connected with himself—and here we are
called on to inquire what was the nature of the Committee ap-
pointed, and what has been the report. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-General) has
attributed great blame to roe for my conduct last year.
I will not detain the House with a defence of my conduct last
year, as I fear I should never satisfy the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman ; for, while he blames me for being in opposition
to the Government with regard to the inquiry into the case
of Mazzini, he blames me likewise for supporting the Go-
vernment when they said the Committee should be a secret
one; so that, whether I support the Government or whether
I oppose them, I am not likely to obtain the Learned Soli-
citor-General's approbation. (Laughter.) Sir, this
Committee was appointed, as I think fairly appointed. I
also think it was quite right that the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Finsbury should not be on it, and that per-
sons of a fair and impartial temper should compose it—( Hear,
hear)—but when 1 hear the Right Hon. Gentleman the Se-
cretary at War, who spoke last night, and the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who spoke this night, laying such stress
on the fact that the majority of the Committee were opposed
to them in politics, I own I do not think there was any fear
of an adverse report from that particular circumstance.—
( Hear, hear.) I think men of calm and dispassionate
minds would be as likely to do justice to those op-
posed to them, as if they sat on the same side ;
but if the Learned Solicitor-General thinks that the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has been injured in
this respect, let him have another Committee.—(Laughter.)
Arid instead of the Hon. Member for Kendal, and the lion.
Member for Derby, let him have the Hon. Member for
Knaresborough, and the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury—
( Great laughter)—and he will then be satisfied, for he will
have a majority of Members who perhaps will take a more
favourable view of the Right
„Hon. Gentleman.—(Renewed
laughter.) But, Sir, with regard to the report of the Com-
mittee, they went so far back into history, they showed so
much "antiquarian research "—(Laughter)—that I wonder
they did not adduce the case of " Hamlet," Prince of Denmark,
who opened the letter of the King, and had Rosencrantz
Guildestern, the Ministers, executed in his stead.—( Laughter.)
But when they had proceeded through their research, and
came to the present time, they gave no account of the conduct
of the Secretary of State; they say, as the Lords' Committee
said, that it was not required either with the present or the
past Secretaries of State. They do not say that they believe
the power was used for party objects, but the welfare of the
country. But then they say there are some cases of which
they must make particular mention. (The Noble Lord hero
read part of the report, and then proceeded.) They then refer
to five different cases—the outbreak in 1842; that which took
place its Wales in 1843 ; the case of Martini ; the ease of
Stolzman ; and the case of Grodicke. When the Committee
had gone into the particulars of these five cases, and when the
lion. Member for Finsbury complains of his letters being
opened, I do not know why the Committee should stop short in
giving information.—( Hear, hear.) Then it is said that
Members of Parliament are no better than other persons.
—(" Hear, hear," from Colonel Sibthorp.) Undoubtedly,
if Members of this House were to be engaged in a treasonable
correspondence or in promoting sedition, let the Seeretary of
State not hesitate to open their letters.--(Hear, hear.) That,
however, is not the question now, the question is whether, it
having been stated that his letters have been opened, he is not
entitled to call for inquiry, and have it ascertained whether or
not he was fit to represent a great portion of the people of this
country, because, as Members of this House, we do not only
represent our constituents, but we have to take their share
in passing laws by which the property in the country is pre-
served ; and if such is the case, is it not fitting, when an Hon.
Member states that his letters have been opened, that the
House should give him an opportunity of showing that his
letters ought not to have been opened, or whether he is a fit
representative of the people of this country ? The Honourable
Member for Bute referred to cases of sedition, and rather im-
plied that the Hon. Member for Finsbury was engaged with
those who were seditiously inclined.—(No, no.) Perhaps, then,
it was not his intention to do so, but he appeared to have that
object in view.—(Hear.) Now I have heard a most able speech
from the Secretary at War—(Hear, hear)—a speech in which
he has shown a power and eloquence that will make him an
ornament to the House ; but that speech was little calculated to
persuade the House to refuse the inquiry asked for by my
Hon. and Noble Friend the Member for Sunderland.—( Hear,
hear.) It has then been said that it was not the object of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury to elucidate the truth,—
( Hear.) Now I have always thought that inquiry was
the best calculated to obtain the truth ; and if inquiry is
evaded it is clear that the parties did not wish
the truth to come out. Why, I ask, should we not have a
short inquiry into the particular case, and set right the cha-
racter of the Hon. Gentleman ?__(Hear, hear.) If the House
allows such a case as the present to pass without inquiry, be-
cause it is inconvenient to the Government, that will very
much strike at the character and reputation of the House, and
it could not be otherwise than that the House will suffer in
public estimation. An Hon. Gentleman who spoke yesterday,
the Member for Bath, said that he believed that his letters had
been also opened in 1837 and 1838.—(Hear, hear.) I know
of no imputation on the character of that Gentleman.
He was at that time the agent for Canada. He
conducted his case, a case I did not admire, in a
moot able and admirable manner; and if he asked for
nay opinion
in-
quiry on the subject, the House, in his opinion, ought to en-
ter into it.—(Hear.) Such, Sir, are the results of
upon the whole case. I think, as regards the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State fur the Home Department, the
imputation upon him that he has been the first to go to ex-
tremes in this practice, is unjust.—( Hear, hear.) With
regard to the case of M. Mazzini, blame was attributable to
the Government. They have now taken an extraordinary
course. There can be no doubt that it has led
to melancholy results, arid ought not to be repeated •
and we wish to avoid anything that might be
calculated to abase the character of the country. I
think that the House cannot refuse the inquiry proposed by
my Honourable and Noble Friend the Member for Sun-
derland, and 1 expect, as the result of that inquiry, that
the character of the Right Honourable Baronet will come
out clear. It will be supposed, if you grant this inquiry,
that you have done it for the public good, but if you refuse
any further inquiry, and shut up the question, depend upon it
the public mind will not be satisfied, and you will be obliged
at last to surrender a necessary power, or to make further in-
quiry on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose and addressed the House.
He said, although, Sir, I am entitled to address the House a
second time, in consequence of the amendment of the Noble
Lord, as I have already expressed my opinion fully
on the original motion, 1 shall not avail myself
of the privilege which I possess to enter at any
length in this discussion but there are one or two points to
which I feel it necessary to call the attention of the House.
It has been stated in the course of the debate that I indi-
rectly charged the Hon. Member for Finsbury with being
connected with Chartists.
The very first Member who spoke
upon the subject after myself, the Colleague of the Honourable
Member for Finsbury, pat a false construction on the words
that I addressed to the House. That Hon. Member has said
that I indirectly alluded to a connexion which existed between
the lion. Member for Finsbury and the Chartists. Now, in my
opinion, the indirect allusion is worse than the direct ones—
( Hear, hear.) Although public duty will not permit us to
answer the questions which have been put with respect to the
opening of lettlers, I consider that I should be taking
an unjust advantage of the Honourable Member
for Finsbury, if I said one word crirninating his
conduct, and I hope I may be permitted to advert to the last
thirty years of my life, in order to refute the assertion that I
have ever been guilty of bringing forward subjects with unge-
nerous intentions. --( Hear, hear.) It never entered my mind,
the impression that the lion. Gen-
while speaking, that it was possible any one could suppose
that I was countenancing
tleman had done any act that would render him unworthy of a
seat in this House. What was the course that was taken?
The Hon. Gentleman made no personal motion. It was a
mdetpiornopfoosreidnqountirtyaecoxtemnrndiintgte
Committee s
more
fromb 1840 to the present time.
ould be appointed, who were
to inquire whether any alteration had been made in the law.
The ifor theonb.lol\oldemobfe rt
hissay
Ittahliaatn I.lrl
ei nf
ui sgt
ee
er ss wereh ic mh
than the soldiers who pulled the
baggers of theia been spilt
ed
responsible
muskets that
shot them. He lastly said that
the
ng of letters than
any preceding Government during the same period. It may
be true that more warrants have been issued for that pur-
pose, arid I shall be able clearly to show the House that in
the state of the country it was necessary. My Right Hon.
Friend the Secretary of State was justified in all that lie has
done. In 1842 the country was in the greatest
danger, but no warrants had been issued for the
purpose of exaggerating that danger.—( Hear, hear.)
Yes ! we forget now that in one town alone_and I am not
speaking of that town as the one in which the greatest appree
pension of danger existed—we forget that there was one town
alone in which, during the winter of that year, seventeen
thousand persons arose each day without the means of employ.
merit on whirls they could depend for subsistence 1—( Hear,
hear.) I know well what was the state of this raetrorlis at

that period ; I know what was the state of Manchester ; what
was the state of the manufacturing districts at that period;
and we are now taunted with having disbelieved the
allegations we heard made in this House respecting the
state of the country. But I can now see that it
was a state of real and serious peril, and it did
become our duty to exert every power we possessed for
the purpose of protecting the public peace.—( Cheers.) And
that was the cause of my reference to the state of the country
in 1842, and not, I assure the Hon. Gentleman, with the in-
tention in the slightest degree of connecting him with the pro-
ceedings which were then endangering the kingdom. That,
Sir, is one of the points on which I wished to offer some ex-
planation in the course of last night's debate. But the Hon.
Member for Shrewsbury has declared his intention of support-
ing the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland.
In the course of the speech in which the Hon. Gentleman
avowed that intention, he observed that I had, with very great
apparent warmth, addressed the House, and that I had been
very emphatic in my action—but he undertook to assure the
House that my warmth, although I had heard the charges
of the Right Hon Gentleman the Member for Finsbury,
although he had charged us with being the cause of the
shedding of innocent blood, with having fabricated warrants,
with having abused and exceeded our powers—was entirely
simulated, and that notwithstanding my apparent vehemence
and warmth, I was acting the part, as I occasionally found
it convenient, of the " choleric gentleman."—(Laughter.)
Now, it is certainly very possible to manifest great vehemence
in action, and yet at the same time not to be in a very
great passion. On the other hand, it is also possible to
appear exceedingly indifferent and composed in your
manner, and yet exhibit very acrimonious feelings.--( Im-
mense heering from both sides of the House.) Now I will not,
notwithstanding the provocation of the Hon. Gentleman, I
will not deal so harshly with him as he has dealt with me. lie
undertook to assure the House that my vehemence was pre-
tended, and my warmth simulated ; I, on the contrary, will
do hint the justice—the entire justice—of saying that I do be-
lieve his bitterness was not simulated—( Tremendous cheering)
—but that it was wholly and entirely sincere 1—( Renewed
cheering, and laughter.) Now, the Hon. Gentleman has a
perfect right to support a hostile amendment ; it is perfectly
open to the Hon. Gentleman to let the debate proceed for two
nights, and then find that the motion is not placed exactly in
a convenient form, and to try to ascertain its what
mode it would be most captivating and convenient. The Hon.
Gentleman is at perfect liberty to give whatever support he
pleases to that motion ; all I ask is, when he gives that support
to a hostile amendment, that he does not say he gives it in a
friendly spirit.—( Loud cheers. ).
" Give me the avowed, the erect, the manly foe,
Bold I can meet, perhaps can turn the blow,
But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
Save ! save I oh, save me from the candid friend I"
—(lmmense cheers.) Here we arc met in debate ; we, and
our opponents opposite; we enter into conflict; we bear
wounds and we return them, adverso ictu. But when engaged
in that conflict, certainly it is not very convenient,
though still unavoidable, to have a blow aimed at
your right flank, on which you are not guarded.—(Cheers.)
lie it so ! it cannot be avoided ; but all I ask is, do not profess
friendship when your purpose is enmity.—(Cheers.) In the
course of the same speech the Hon. Gentleman made also
this charge against me ; the Hon. Gentleman said,—and as it
appeared to me, it was quite an unnecessary allusion for the
sake of his argument,—the Hon. Gentleman said that it was
notorious I was in constant correspondence and communica-
tion with a gentleman who had been engaged in Colonel
Despard's plot ; that this gentleman was now a Member of the
Government, and that, speaking of him, I had deelared he was
a friend of mine, and that I was proud of his friendship !
Putting these observations together, and considering that the
gentleman alluded to is a member of the Government, and
that I have avowed a friendship for him, I cannot find any
other person to whom these observations can apply, except a
friend of mine who was the subject of some discussion here
last year, when the absurd charge brought against him was
literally laughed out of the House. I cannot doubt, therefore,
that the observations of the Hon. Gentleman applied to Mr.
Bonham, who now holds a civil situation in the Ordnance
department.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The plot of
Colonel Despard took place in the year 1802. Well,
forty-three years have now elapsed since the year 1802. Now
I do not know whether a charitable feeling—considering that
my Hon. Friend must have been a young man at the time—l
do not know whether a charitable feeling would not induce me
to maintain a friendship for a man after a lapse of forty-three
years.—( Cheers.) Why, when we recollect what took place
at that time, both in Ireland and in this country, I would not
revive the recollections of such a period; but certainly, if a man
showed a change of feeling, and an altered mode of life, I should
rather be disposed to extend that oblivion which is most consistent
with true charity, over the culpable proceedings of that man's
early life.—(Cheers.) Bat at the same time, considering that
Despard's plot was one of this nature—that one of the counts
of the indictment against Despard and his associates extended
to burning the Bank—that they intended a bloody slaughter of
the peaceable inhabitants of this city—but above all, that they
contemplated the murder of the Sovereign on his way to Par-
liament—l am not sure that the lapse of three-and-forty years
would justify me in recommending a man for a high civil
situation in the ordnance department. Now, observe, lam
speaking on the assumption that this Hon. Friend of mine
was really engaged in this plot. But what will the House
think—what will the Hon. Memberifor Shrewsbury think of
himself—when I state that the charge is utterly without
foundation—(Loud cheers)—that it is as really and utterly
without foundation that ray lion. Friend was concerned in
Despard's plot, as it would have been if the Hon. Member
for Shrewsbury had said lie was himself concerned in the Gun-
powder Plot !—( Cheers and laughter.) I have received from
my Hon. Friend a letter on this subject, with which, in jus-
tice to him, I must trouble the House. It is as follows :—" I
have this moment read a speech of Mr. D'lsraeli's, which,
though my name is not mentioned in it, it is im-
possible, from the reference to the situation I have
the honour to hold, and the kindness with which you were
pleased to speak of me in the debate of last year, for me to mis-
understand. He charges me with being concerned in Col.
Despard's plot. I find, on referring to the State Trials, that
the trial of Col. Despard took place in ISO 3, the plot having
occurred in the preceding year, 1802. I was at that time
sixteen years of age, in attendance on my father, then suffering
from an attack of paralysis, I being under the care of a private
tutor at home. My age at the time will probably exempt me
from any suspicion of having been concerned in that plot ;
but if not, I state explicitly that I had no more concern, di-
rectly or indirectly, with Colonel Despard and his asso-
ciates, than yourself."—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) My
Honourable Friend then goes on to allude to a more painful
subject, he says—" But that I may not be charged with with-
holding from you anything that might have given rise to such
a misrepresentation, I should state that my half-brother, who
was fifteen years older than myself, who, along with Lord
Cloncurry, was arrested under the suspension of the habeas
corpus, and confined in 1799." Now Ido ask the Hon. Gen-
tleman to have some sort of foundation for his statements. 1 ap •
prebend that he had opportunities of ascertaining at least Mr.
Bonham's age, and I ask whether he thinks it fair to charge a
gentleman with having participated in Colonel Dcspard's plot,
he being at the time of the age of sixteen, that being the
readiest means of at once showing how totally the charge was
without foundation. Whether or not the Hon. Gentleman had
heard of the misfortune of my Hon. Friend's half-brother,
several years older than himself, I will ask him whether or not
it would not have been more just to have ascertained the
facts of the case before he undertook to charge my Hon.
Friend with having been guilty of such a conspiracy against
the life of his Sovereign ? These are the two points on which
I wished to enter. I have said before, that Ido not mean to
take any share in that general discussion in[which I have before
had an opportunity of joining. I spoke before under the
same feelings which I speak now, and I tell you you are
meditating an act of the greatest injustice towards her Ma-
jesty's Government. It was disclosed last year that letters
were opened by my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It became necessary to submit the whole matter to a Com-
mittee of Inquiry. This House selected its own tribunal.—
( Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Why, by the un-
animous vote of the House, without a division, this Secret
Committee was appointed. Let us see in what relation the
House stands towards the Government. The House chose to
have the inquiry conducted by a Secret Committee, and it en-
tirely approved of the gentlemen who composed it. I know
not whether the approbation of that Committee was universal,
but this I know, that the Noble Lord opposite ( Lord J. Russell)
delivered his opinion that the Committee ought to be secret, and
that the constitution of the Committee was a perfectly fair one.
A division was taken on the question whether the
lion. Gentleman ought to be a Member of the Committee or
not. He stated himself that lie had no wish to be a Member
of the Committee.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He begged of his
friends not to divide the House on the motion. I assured him
that no personal disrespect was intended towards him, and on
the other hand the Noble Lord who moved for the appointment
of the Committee was for the same reasons excluded, from it.
1 say, Sir, this House chose its own tribunal. We were
invited before that Committee to disclose every fact, and we
did so. It is too late now to say that the constitu-
tion of the Committee of the House of Lords was different
from the House of Commons. You were aware of the con-
stitution of that Committee three days after its appointment.
The Committee of the House of Lords was appointed on the
4th of July. The only difference is, that Members of the late
Government were placed upon it. It is true, you made an ob-
jection at the time, but you did not urge it as a fatal objection.
The Hon. Gentleman at the time—l mean before the ap-
pointment of the Committee—declared that his letters had
been opened, although you are now attempting to raise a
question of privilege. I say, that before that Committee was
appointed, the Hon. Gentleman distinctly charged us with
opening his letters. He said, on the 18th of July, referring
to a former period, " I believed then, and I believe now, I
I am in a condition to prove that my own letters have been
opened." What can be more emphatic ?—( Hear, hear.) Tho
Hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by putting to my Right
lion. Friend the same question as he puts now—did you, or
did you not, open my letters ?_(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Duncombe. ) The Hon. Gentleman had as much cognisance
of the fact then as now. He told you so. He said he was in a
condition to prove it. The course you chose to take after this
declaration, you took it unanimously, was to appoint a Secret
Committee, in order that there might be no pretence for with-
holding any information. We gave that information without re-
serve. %Ve gave every warrant, every reason upon which we acted
to the Committee, because that Committee was secret and com-
posed of honourable men. That Committee brought in a
verdict of acquital, so far as intentions and honourable motives
were concerned. We stand confidently upon that. We are
prepared to stand the test of a division, although we have already
submitted our conduct to examination, and appeared before a
tribunal of your own selection.—(Cheers.) I repeat, Sir, the
inquiry was fully gone into. We gave our evidenee, we were
cross-examined as to motives, yet that tribunal gave a verdict
decidedly in our favour, and will you now reverse every prin-
ciple ofjust ice?—( Loud cries of " 'leer, hear," from the Minis-
terial benches.) You propose to submit us to
another inquiry and another tribunal. Sir, lam well aware
that different line's of conduct may be pursued by men when in
office and when on the Opposition benches. lam aware of the
reserve which belongs to a member of rho Government ; but
yet there are circumstances which should guide the conduct of
those who have been in office, who cannot altogether divest
themselves of the responsibility and trust which formerly at-
tached to them. I was invited in the attack made by you—
(pointing to some of the members of the late Administration)
—with respect to the unfortunate results of your Indian policy,
but I refused to be a party to any such attack. I was then 4n
office. I knew all the real facts of the case. We had a pow-
erful support, but f said we will nut concur in the motion made
by the Hon. Gentleman, tending to brand our political oppo-
nents with odium: But I know that the Hon. Gentleman
thought that was a needless delicacy. But Ido not take credit
to myself for this course—(again addressing the Members of
the late Administration on the Opposition benches)—l knew
well your position. I knew in what condition you were as
well as you did yourselves. We have exercised no power,
which you have not, I state this in the face of the country,
that in no single instance have we o;:ereised a power which
you would not have done under similar circumstances. In
critical times we are liable, as you were, to commit mistakes.
Letters may have been stopped and opened, without any dis-
credit being implied on the party to whom they were addressed ;
but this was your position liliewise.—( Loud cries of Hear,)
You concurred in the appointment of that tribunal. You know
Well,N
o blseir Lord
virideu says
lsp v %eciat.
to foreigners,
that we did nothing which pan bad not
}ourselves done.—
(Loud cheers and cries of `i Hear, hear.' ) I envy you not.
it will be but a sorry triumph even if you should succeed in
subjecting us to a second trial, and provoking that condemna-
acted wrong w,
tion from which we
threshpaedet
to c alfl
am willing to adroit that I think this power
ought to le tatorci4cd with a rvaerw almost veneatertilit to
escaped.
z i n i , rhe

our own countrymen. But, Sir, I cannot altogether accede to
the doctrine of the Noble Lord, that, under no conceivable
circumstances, should a Government be permitted to exercise
this power. I think nothing would be so unwise as to lay
down any general rule on the subject. When one
of the Bonaparte family organised an expedition for
the purpose of invading France, and attempted to
make the shores of this country subservient to his
rebellious scheme, I think it would have been perfectly justi-
fiable to prevent this country from being made in any way in-
strumental in carrying on a civil war in France. At a future
time it may be desirable to enter into the question as to whe-
ther or not it may be desirable to alter the present law, but we
will not attempt to purchase your favour by any promised alte-
ration in the law, or by intimating any readiness to accede to
it. Condemn us if you will, but we will not endeavour
to coneiliate you by making any promise with
respect to the sacrifice of this important power.—(Loud
cheers.) Let it rest upon its own basis. Again, I ask you to
remember the position in which you were placed in 1842 and
1843. Remember the danger which then existed. We en-
deavoured to tranquillise the country without making any
demands for extraordinary powers. We conducted the trials
with a spirit of equity and moderation which extorted almost
unanimous praise.—( Loud cheers.) We did that, and you
now enjoy tranquillity.—( Loud cheers.) Last year,
speaking of Great Britain, we never enjoyed more
of social contentment, or witnessed less disposition towards
insubordination—l mean as it regards political offences--or dis-
turbances of the public peace. I say, again, we have been
already tried. Remember this—expose us if you will to a
second trial; avail yourselves of popular indignation, which, if
applicable at all, is applicable to the principle and not against
the men ; proceed against us if you will—but I say I would
rather be in the position of men defeated by your injustice,
than be one of the majority by whom that injustice is ac-
complished.—(The Right Hon. Baronet sat down amidst
loud and continued cheering. )
Mr. B. D'ISRAELI then rose amid the most profound si-
lence. He said—l am aware that I cannot speak twice upon
this subject, having seconded the amendment, but I may be
permitted—and I entreat the utmost indulgence from the House
—1 may be permitted to explain the circumstance to which
the Right Hon. Baronet has alluded. I will not stop to allude
now to the reasons which induced me to make a statement
which has been proved to be utterly unfounded.—( Hear, hear,
and cheering.) The statement, I beg to assure the Right. Hon.
Baronet and the House, that was mado by me was wholly un-
premeditated.—( Hear, hear.) I will at once acknowledge that
I committed a great and grievous error, and I am not ashamed
to acknowledge it.—( Cheers.) I am glad that the House is so
full, and that I can offer to the gentleman whose conduct I
have so misrepresented, an ample, a humble, and a complete
rpology.—( Cheers. ) I deeply regret that I have been
led to make such a statement, and I can only
say that if there is any language at my command
that can better express the deep pain which I feel
at having without cause and without premeditation hurt his
feelings—(Cheers)—if it is possible to convoy to that gentle-
man the expression of my regret—that language I will at once
use. But I do not think I can offer that apology in a manner
more satisfa_tory than in the place where the report was circu-
lated, and in a House so full as this is to-night.— ( Cheers. ) Now,
Sir, I may be permitted to say, that it was a statement per-
fectly unpremeditated, I had been taunted by a cheer, which
called to my recollection a circumstance which, I confess, I
now regret having alluded to.—(Cheers.) I am not a person
apt to be irritable in debate, but, at half-past eleven at night,
few of us rise superior to all angry feelings.—(oh, and cheers.)
I can say that the real state of the circumstances to which allu-
sion has been made, has given me sincere pleasure.—(Oh, oh,
and Hear, hear.) I state again, most distinctly, that it hav-
ing been represented to me, and at no second-hand,
that the gentleman in question is perfectly free from blame, I
will refer, and he may refer with satisfaction, to this exculpa-
tion of his character.—(Cheers, laughter, and cries of " Oh,
oh.") I am sure that if I have said anything to lead to these
murmurs, it has been far from my intention to do so. I cannot
answer the Right Hon. Baronet on the other heads. He has
four-and-twenty hours to arrange his improptu reply—( Loud
cries of " Oh, oh")—and I must be silent. But I may be al-
lowed to put the Right Hon. Baronet right in a statement that
is perfectly incorrect. He has stated that I was the cause of
this amendment being pressed.—(Cheers, laughter, and cries
of " Oh, oh.") So far is that from being the case, I very
much opposed the amendment being brought forward, for this
reason—(Laughter)—because I knew it would give to the
Right Hon. Baronet an opportunity of speaking twice.—
(.Laughter and cries of " Oh, oh," amid which the Hon. Mem-
ber for Shrewsbury resumed his seat.)
Sir JOHN HANDIER said the Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Government had made some observations with
regard to the amendment pressed by the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Sunderland; and he (Sir 'John Hanmer) thought it
right to state, as soon as possible, what he knew about that
amendment, because the Right Honourable Baronet in-
dulged in some observations which appeared to him clearly to
impugn the right of those Members who sat on that side to
act in any manner their sense of justice dictated. He was
not about to enter on the question that he had formeriy
urged with regard to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Finsbury. He had expressed his opinion on that subject
formerly, and the House would do him the justice to remember,
that whether that opinion was right or otherwise, whatever
judgment might be formed of the discussion, he had confined
his observations to the case of the Honourable
Gentleman himself, putting aside altogether that of M. Mazzini
and other persons. If that joint case had been brought before
the House, it was his intention to have voted for the Govern-
ment.—(Partial cheers, and marks of impatience.) He was
speaking to a question—a grave question—which concerned the
independence of Parliament. He (Sir J. Hanmer) spoke but
very seldom, and he was anxious to explain the case to Hon.
Gentlemen. When he came down to the House, he spoke to
the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Lord J. Man-
ners), and expressed a great desire that the ques-
tion should be limited to this single case. He wrote
on a scrap of paper which he had in his pocket yet—
(Laughter)—in language precisely to the effect of the amend-
' ment submitted by the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland.
Ile was sitting in his place, when the Noble Lord came to
him. He understood, for ho had not been in the House—
(Laughter)—that he ( Sir John Hammer) had expressed
an opinion with regard to the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Finabury. He stated that he had expressed
such an opinion, and that lie was anxious to give a fair
and independent vote upon the subject, if the case of the
Hon. Member alone should come before the House. He thought
it not prudent to move such an amendment himself, as he was
not a good speaker—( Laughter)—and loth to present himself
to the patience of the House. The Noble Lord had written
another amendment which he ( Sir John Hanmer) found pre.
cisely similar in its text to his own, and he said that the
Noble Lord's station, long experience, and position in the
House, entitled him to move the amendment to which he ( Sir
John Hamner) would with pleasure give his support. Such
were the facts of the case. He thought that the Right Hon.
Baronet wished to fetter the independence of Hon. Members
on that side of the House.—(Laughter and cheers.) It was
not the first time he had entertained that opinion. He
did give Government his general support, but he held himself
at liberty to vote as his conscience directed ; and as long as
he had the honour to be a Member in that House he should not
be called in question by any man, not even by him holding the
very highest position in that House.—( Laughter and cheers. )
Sir GEORGE GREY was glad to observe that some Hon.
Gentlemen opposite agreed with Members on that
(the Liberal) side upon this question. It was some
satisfaction for them to observe the symptoms of
mutiny and rebellion which existed against the
impulsive principle of the Right lion. Baronet—(Loud
cheers)—which the Hon. Baronet the Member for Essex
(Sir John Tyrrell) had frankly and honestly declared was the
principle on which a large number of the Hon. Members on
that side supported the Government.—( Hear, hear.) It was
not his intention to provoke a continuance of the debate, en
a question which was now so much narrowed by the amend-
ment of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. The
Right Hon. Baronet opposite had addressed the House at
some length upon this question, and had fully and fairly stated
his views ; but he availed himself of the privilege of his
office by speaking a second time, and in that speech he had
not confined himself to a mere explanation as he should
have done. lie did not say this because he undervalued
the speech he had just heard, for he did hope that this lengthened
discussion would lead to some satisfactory legislative enact-
ment upon it ; but he did think that speech might have been
made at an earlier period of this discussion, and thereby avoid
the protraction of it to three nights' debate.—(Hear, hear.)
However, the House had now before it the reports of both
Committees, and he hoped the result would be some legislative
enactment, so as to place the law on some certain footing, for
at present it was in a most unsatisfactory state, and demanded
that it should be either altogether abolished, or made plain and
intelligible.—( Hear, hear.) In the matter now under discus-
sion, he could not avoid saying that the Government were ex-
ceedingly blameable.—(Cries of " Oh, oh I") Yes, he would
repeat it, and he would state the grounds on which he thought
so.—(Hear, hear.) What was the question now before the
House? It was not of crimination of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury; for after a full investigation—(The rest of the
sentence was lost in the confusion that prevailed at the moment,
and cries of " Order, order.") He did not think that after
the verdict of the Committee, as contained in their report, it
would be fair to submit the Government to the ordeal of an-
other tribunal of inquiry..--( Hear, hear.) He would cordially
subscribe to that verdict, but at the same time he would ask had
the Hon. Memb r for Finsbury had a like verdict ?
That Hon. Member had complained that his letters had been
opened, and he asked for redress for that outrage.—( Hear,
hear.) If his letters had been so opened (and of that there
could be no doubt), then was lie not in the position of a man
who stood suspected by the Government ? He ( Sir George
Grey) contended that he was, and that the report of the Com-
mittee was, in fact, a verdict against him.—( Hea:, hear.) If
so, then he called upon the Government to boldly and fairly
deny the allegation, or to give him the means of a full and fair
investigation into the whole transaction, and enable him to
clear his character of that suspicion.--( Hear, hear.) What
was the course of the Government towards the Hon. Member
for Finsbury ? If on the first night of this discussion they
had the power to deny the allegation of the Hon. Member,
why did they not do so, and put an end to this discussion?—
( Hear, hear.) If, on the other hand, they adopted this re-
port, why did they not once avow in an open and manly man-
ner the fact, that they had ordered the opening of the Hon.
Member's letters?—( Hear, hear.) But instead of adopting
this course, they chose rather to adopt the tortuous
path they were now following, and leave the House
to infer that they admitted the fact.—(Hear, hear.)
If the Ccmmittee had investigated the case of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, they had made no report
upon it. The Government did not deny that the letters had
been opened. Yet the Committee were silent on the point,
and surely tine inference of their abstaining from any allusion
to the circumstance proved that there was nothing in thr:,„
letters contained of a eriminatery character.—(Hear ~ilear.)
Under these circumstances, ho (Sir George Gre';')
the Hon. Member for Finsbury was per would say
f
following up the subject here, and in callin
"....ctly warranted in
to defend him.—(Hear, hear.)
assigned
the Home Secretary, for not
;:on when first put to him ? Why, that ex •
teems inconvenience would arise from answering such ques-
tions, but he ( Sir Geo. Grey) would contend that if twenty
Aleeeers stood up in the House to put the same question, they
should be answered.—( Hear. hear.) Such an excuse was a
gimsy pretext, and should not have been made use of.—( Hear.)
Did they believe that a Ministerial majority would settle the
question ?—Did they believe that a man_ who had public
opinion, justice, precedent, and law in his favour, would rest
with the decision of that majority. ?—(Cheers. ) Did they
think that their decision would prevent the renewal of the dis-
cussion at another time, to the obstruction of the public busi-
ness?—,(Ministerial cheers, and counter-cheers from the Oppo-
sition. )
Much as he regretted that interruption, ht
he thought
the Government ought to give the satisfaction se justly gde-
mended, and reconsider their determination. In appointing
the Committee of last year, the Ministers had yielded
to public opinion. He hoped they would now see the
expediency of adopting a similar course, and making a similar
concession.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped they would give his
Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury an opportunity of vin-
dicating his character—(Hear, hear)—and yield to the general
opinion of that (the Opposition) side of the House, of many
dooof t
rsheir own supporters, and of the public generally, out of
.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. STRUTT begged leave to explain, that he had not
said
in his speech what had been attributed to him, that his
Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had not, in bringing
tha sohject before the House, mentioned his own case. NN "
he had said was, that his Hon. Friend did not lee;iagnedozieci
the charge of opening his letters, in the ease e
distinct inanner in which he now did. ghlo honourable Friend on that

occasion had only stated that he did not know that his own
' letters might not have been opened.--( Hear. )
Mr. JARVIS wished to state the reasons for which he
would support the amendment. He had fallen into an error, and
he believed many of the Members of the House had fallen into
an error in consequence of the allegation made last night by
the Hon Member for Shrewsbury, respecting a friend of the
Right lion. Baronet's opposite—a gentleman connected with
the Government. He was glad that the explanation had been
made, which induced the lion. Member for Shrewsbury to
make so complete and becoming an apology.—(Hear, hear. )
Let it be remembered then that it had been alleged, as an
answer to the complaint of his Hon. Friend, who now de-
manded an inquiry, that because a Member of this House had
presented petitions, and advocated the cause of persons who
were supposed to be connected with the disturbance of the
country, he was himself a fit object for suspicion, and the
Secretary of State was justified in opening his letters.--
(No, no, from the Ministerial benches.) As the Right Hon.
Baronet ( Sir Robert Peel) had thought it proper to make an
explanation in the case of his private friend, and to accept the
apology, why should not an explanation be given in a similar
spirit to his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury?—(Hear,
hear.) They (the Ministerial party) had charged the Hon.
Member for Finsbury with being connected with persons who
were dangerous to the peace of the country. Why, then, did
they refuse to do him the same justice which they did to their
personal friends Hear, hear.) He did not think that this
question was to be decided by acrimonious language on each
side, but by both sides showing, a willingness to do justice, and
a desire for nothing more.—( Hear, hear.) The Committee
might or might not have investigated the case of the
Honourable Member for Finsbury ; but what was the
country to infer from the silence of the Commit-
tee on that subject?—( Hear, hear.) They had given
no verdict in the case ; and he had a right to inter a verdict of
acquittal of his Hen. Friend, and the public would certainly do
so.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right lion. Gentlemen opposite
refused explanation and inquiry, he wculd say that, by their
own conduct, they were condemned.—(Cheers.) He (Mr.
Jervis) would not advert to the law of the case, if he had not
been in some sort referred to by his lion. and Learned Friend
the Solicitor-General. He admitted that this was not a fitting
occasion to discuss the question, whether the law was in favour
of the Secretary of State, or whether, if it were so, it should be
continued. But, as the Solicitor-General had chosen to reply
to the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member
for Kinsale, he (Mr. Jervis) did not think it would be justice
to the profession if he did not give his opinion of the law to be
confirmatory of that of his Hon. and Learned Friend.
(Cheers.) It might be said that the right to issue warrants for
the opening of letters in the Post-office was given by statute,
But the only exemption by statute was to the officers of the
Post-office from criminal proceedings for acting upon
the warrants of the Secretary of State. —(Hear, hear.)
The simple question before the House was that of an Hon.
Member, standing in his place in Parliament, and making
a positive statement, that his letters had been opened. That
was a breach of privilege. The Hon. Member for Fins-
bury had a right to demand an explanation, and on this
ground he (Mr. Jervis) would support the amendment of the
Noble Lord.
Mr. AIUNTZ rose amid loud cries of " Divide, divide."
He said he would not detain the House many minutes.
He wished to assure the Right Hon. Baronet that in giving
his support to the Noble Lord, he did not wish to cast
any reproach upon the Right Hon. Baronet. He thought
there had been a great deal more reproach thrown on the
Government than they deserved. What had they done but
follow the steps of their predecessors, and was it not natural
that they should do so ?—( Hear, hear.) It was a distinct
question, whether the practice was right or wrong. He
must confess that he did not like the foreign part of this
question.—( Hear, hear.) He had been extremely astonished
at finding that the power of opening letters existed. The
public had been astonished. He bad not yet recovered the
feeling which he had entertained when he first heard that
this power existed. When he first heard it ho denied it.
He thought that such a practice ought to be confined to
the Autocrat of Russia, or the Despot of Prussia. He had
always thought that in England a man's letters were as safe as
his house. He thought the practice was a disgrace to any
Government.—(Cheers.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose to reply. He would not
detain the House many minutes after such a lengthened de-
bate. When the Right Hon. Baronet said that he (Mr. Dan-
combe) was meditating injustice to him he would ask whether
it would not be much truer for him to say that the Right Hon.
Baronet was continuing injustice towards him (Mr. Dun-
combe), denying that which he thought, and which he believed
a great portion of the public thought, he had a right to de-
mand ? The Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland pro-
posed by his amendment to supply an omission of the Com-
mittee. The Right Honourable Baronet said he would
resist that motion because it would reflect on the Govern-
ment. How could it do that, when they stated
that they had exercised the power of opening letters so
leniently ? Why if they had another Committee they would
come out of it purer by the investigation. He had been accused
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary-at-War with
having brought forward this motion solely on grounds of per-
sonal hostility to the Right Hoe. Baronet the Secretary for the
Homo Department. With reference to the charge of having
brought forward the motion from a feeling of personal hostility
to the Right Hon. Gentleman, he begged altogether to dis-
claim any such motive. He had used strong expres-
sions in reference to the conduct of the Government.
But he wanted to know against whom he was to
direct his attack ?—( Hear, hear.) Was he to attack the
Lord Chancellor, or the Lord Chamberlain, or any other indi-
vidual ? No, he must attack the individual filling the office of Se.
cretary of State for the time being. If the late Government
had exercised the power in the same manner, he should have
acted precisely as he had done.—( Hear, hear.) The Right_
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government said—" You
have chosen your own tribunal, and the verdict is one of ac-
quittal to us." Now, what was the fact with regard to the
choosing of this tribunal ? Was it not done in a monstrous
hurry ? Did they not omit the usual form, viz. that of placing
the names on the table on one day, and appointing the Com-
mittee on the next ?—( Hear, hear.) The names were taken
as they came out of the Right Hon. Baronet's pocket,
one at a time, and if they had not taken them as they were,
they could have had no Committee at all. Now, what was the
result of the verdict of the Committee? The Right Honourable
Baronet said, " Whatever you do, stand by a Committee.'
The Committee were very much divided, and the Noble Lord
who was the Chairman of it stated that there was a bit of black
and a bit of white, and it was, altogether, neither black nor
white.—( Laughter.) That was the report of the Committee
itself. What did the lion. Member for Kendal say ? Why,
that there were two parties on the Committee, who were very
equally balanced, and that, consequently, the report could be
nothing less than one of compromise ; and if he were allowed
to express his opinion in reference to that part of ttna
report which related to Mazzini, and the exercise sot the
power with regard to foreigners, the Honourable esentleman
said he must state that, in his judgment, thP 'Molt Hon.
Baronet had not exercised a sound discriltio-,._( Hear hear.)
Was that a verdict of acquittal ? In 7:"..ent of fact, it, was no
verdict at all. Generally speakin,c--, when a jury could not
agree they were dismissed, a new inquiry granted ; and he
ventured to say that if Us" -Right Hon. Baronet would put those
nine gentlemen into the box, anti let him take his witnesses
into an open r 007,,, they would come to a much more conclusive
report than triat which had been laidupon the table. Why, was
it to come to this, that they were never to canvass any report to
be made by a Committee? Where would be the use of appoint-
ing a Committee if such would be the course pursued He had
shown that there were omissions in the report which bad been
made, and he thought there were sufficient grounds for inquiry.
The opening of Mazzini's letters commenced immediately after
Christmas, but no notice had been taken of this to the Com-
mittee. Mr. Wur tell had never petitioned the House, having
no idea that his letter had been opened, yet his name had been
mentioned in the report. But there was another foreigner
whose name was not introduced, because he had an
intimate friend who was a member of the Committee. New,
he contended that this was an act of great injustice to him.
Had the Right Hon. Baronet been candid, he might have
saved much ill-blood and ill-feeling. If the Right Hon.
Baronet had said at once, "We have opened your
letters, but from the circumstances of the country
we were justified in so doing, at the same
time, however, we are bound to state that we found nothing
in them that in the slightest degree criminated you," though
he should still have contended that an act of great injustice
had been committed, he should have forgiven what had been
done, and should have forgotten it as quickly as he could.
But now how stood the question? It had been said that he
had produced no proof that his letters had been opened ; and
some gentlemen suggested that he should call his
proofs to the bar. He begged to state that he
would submit a motion for that purpose—that the
would bring his proofs to the bar.—(Loud chem.) He would
make a motion to call to the bar the officers of the Post-office,
who must have committed a breach of privilege, if they
had opened his letters without a warrant. It had been
asked why the letters of Members should be protected any
more than those of other persons ? The only difference was, he
conceived, that in an ordinary case there was a misdemeanor,
whereas, in the other, there was a breach of privilege. The
Right Honourable Baronet must not suppose that he begrudged
him any information or amusement which could be derived ,
from his correspondewce.—(Laughter.) Ho was sure, that if
Lord Sidmouth tad done the Right Hon. Baronet the honour
opening Is:is letters, he would have been equally entertained
(Laugls'ser)—and he would have been exceedingly surprised
if lie had been told that, at some future day, that Right Hon.
Baronet would sit amongst those men whom he had de.
nounced over and over again as men who had always sup-
ported bad measures and resisted good. (Laughter,)
With regard to the amendment now made, he bagged to
state that, as there appeared to be a strong dis-
position not to assent to the motion, and as
it appeared most prudent to take the best chance that existed
of obtaining justice, he should withdraw the motion in order
that the sense of the House might be taken on the amendment.
Sir B. PEEL said the usual course was to take the sense
of the House on the original motion ; but as he had no
objection to the sense of the House being taken sr, as to
combine the greatest mass of opinion, he should not object to
the putting of the amendment.
The motion was then withdrawn, and the *amendment put.
Strangers were then ordered to withtraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Lord Hosvisk's tunas &tent
Against it .....
'was consequently lost.
The amendmAleanjtoriti' 'against the amendment ....---95
' DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL,
STAMP
This BiP was bPrnou°ghPtEinßaTnYd rTeaAdXa fißrriltLtL.
im e.
This Bill was also
SUGARfirst DUTIES.
Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. Hawes,
read a time.
stated, that the motion with respect to the sugar duties would
come on in the order in which it originally stood, and the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Manchester would precede that of
the Noble Lord the Member for London.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he
should move that certain officers belonging to her Majesty's
Post-office do attend at the bar of the House, to inform the
House under what authority they had been parties to detain.
ing, delaying, or opening his (Mr. Duncombe's) post letters.
The House then adjourned at One o'clock.

OPINIONS
OF TILE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.—WO
are requested to state that Mr. Colburn, of Great
Marlborough-street, has this day published " The
Maxims and Opinions of the Duke of Wellington," in
1 vol. Bvo., with Portrait, price 14s. bound, which can
now be had of all booksellers. Mr. Colburn has also
just published the German Prince's new work, " Egypt
under Mehemet Ali," by Prince Puckler Muskau.
Translated by D. Evans Lloyd, Esq., complete in 2 vols.,
with Portrait, &c., price 16s. bound, comprising the
three volumes of the German original.
LYCEUM THEATRE.—DougIas Jerrold's Prisoner
of War was produced for the first time at this theatre last
evening, Mr. and Mrs. Keeley sustaining their original cha-
racters. The performance of these artistes It is idle to
criticise—they acted as they always do,admirably—the other
characters were well cast, Valentine and Orson concluded
the evenings entLl'iainment. This extravaganza still con-
tinues it,f.Liiiliant career, and deserves to do so. The pretty
fonr,,le warriors were greatly applauded in their evolutions.
The house was crowded.
Mr. Wickham, Chairman of the Stamps and Taxes, and
Mr. Dean, Chairman of the Customs, had interviews, yester-
day, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.