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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 22, 1845.

private Bills already before the House. This objection over-
ruled, he was quite disposed to reprint the Bills, as the Hon.
Member had suggested.
On the fourth clause being read,
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that after the passing of this
clause, it was his intention to move the introduction of an-
other clause, the object of which was still more effectively
to confine the operation of the Act to other private Acts.
Mr. HENLEY said, that he felt it was impossible to
follow the Chairman in the rapidity with which he proceeded
with the clauses. He had wished to make an observation
with respect to the second clause, but he might now remark
that the fourth clause was inconsistent with the second. That
clause gave greatjurisdiction to magistrates, and itwas therefore
absolutely necessary to define to whom the jurisdiction should
be confided. The Land Clauses Bill stated that this jurisdic-
tion should be confided to " two justices." In the Bill now
before the Committee it was confided to " two or more." In
another place, it was stated that the reference was to be to
"any two justices." If many justieeswere to be occupied in
consequence of the provisions of the Act, their hands might
be completely filled, and the business of the Petty Sessions
would stand still. The number of magistrates to whom the
jurisdiction was given ought to be stated, and he wouldleave
it to the Noble Lord to say which was the proper course.
Lord G. SOMERSET concurred with the Hon. Member,
but if the words " two or more justices" were introduced, it
would meet the difficulty.
Mr. HAWES concurred with the Noble Lord.
Mr. HENLEY—But the words " two or more" would
scarce meet the difficulty; for supposing there were four or
five justices holding a petty sessions, it was likely they should
suspend the whole of the business of the sessions in order to
attend to this, and the result might be a very serious incon-
venience to the public.
Mr. DARBY—There appeared to him to be some contra-
dictions in the Bill on this point; for in one part of it it said
" two justices," and in another " two or more., '
Lord G. SOMERSET believed that by leaving out the
words " two or more" altogether, the difficulty would be met.
Agreed to.
Upon the next clause being read,
Mr. HENLEY called attention to the word " directors ;"
he wished to know whether that included " promoters ;" if it
did not it would be found that there would be contradictions
in the Bill, for in other parts of it these two words were con-
sidered synonymous.
Lord G. SOMERSET would rather decline answering the
question, until the other Bills were before the House.
Mr. HENLEY said his reason for calling attention to the
word was, that in the latter part of the Bill it was enacted
that no director's goods could be seized, while in the Land
Clauses Consolidation Bill there was a process of distress
given against the goods of promoters.
Lord G. SOMERSET considered that the clause as it now
stood was quite clear.—The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 were next agreed to.
In clause 6,
Lord G. SOMERSET proposed a verbal alteration, as to
the mode of paying for shares, which was agreed to.
Mr. HAWES wished to know if building societies would
be affected by this Bill ?
Lord G. SOMERSET—AII the Bills would have a pro-
spective effect.
Clause 8 was next agreed to.
An Hose MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, sug-
gested that, in order the better to ascertain who the share-
holders were, their names should be placed in alphabetical
order, as well as giving their addresses.
Sir GEORGE CLERK conceived that the description con-
tained in the Bill was sufficient to identify the party ; how-
ever he had no objection to the proposed alteration.
The alteration was then made, and the clause agreed to.
On clause 10 being read,
Mr. HAYTER observed that a charge of 2s. 6d. was made
for each certificate. Now, if this charge were to be made
for every certificate each time that a transfer were to be
made, it would form a very heavy item. He conceived that
the 2s. Gd. ought to be only a charge made for making out
the certificate in the first instance. He had heard
of a transfer of 12,000 shares last month, and if 2s. 6d. were to
be charged upon them, it would be a very heavy addition.
Lord G. SOMERSET—The clause stated that the charge
should not exceed 2s. Gd.
Mr. GLADSTONE conceived this to be a matter entirely
for arrangement between the Company and the shareholders.
The clause was then agreed to, without further discussion.
Clauses 12 and 13 were agreed to.
On clause 14, which regulates the fees payable on the
transfer of shares, being put,
Mr. HAYTER objected to it. It would appear from the
wording of the clause that the secretary of a company would
be compelled to enter a transfer in the books of the company,
endorse the transfer, and give a certificate of the transfer, for
which lie would be entitled to demand 2s. 6d. Now he
(Mr. Hayter) would be glad to know if a secretary would
be entitled to 2s. Gd. for only performing one of these acts, or
whether he would not be entitled to this sum until he had
performed the whole of them ?
Lord G. SOMERSET apprehended the 2s. 6d. would be
for performing all three of the acts.
Mr. FOX MAULE reminded the Committee that it would
be competent for the Shareholders to regulate this matter.
The clause only provided that the fee should not exceed 2s. 6d.
Mr. GLADSTONE suggested that the words, "together
with such endorsement and certificate" should be added to
the clause.
The clause with this amendment was agreed to.
On clause 15, which requires all calls to be paid up before
the transfer is made, being put,
Mr. WAWN protested that it was an exceedingly hard
clause. If it passed the Committee a shareholder would be
precluded from disposing of his shares until he had paid up
the whole of his calls. Now a call might be made for a par-
ticular day, and in the interim no one could transfer his stock.
This was extremely hard, and unless the' Government had
some strong grounds to support it, he thought it ought to be
either struck out or postponed.
Mr. HAWES said the clause would put an end to a cer-
tain description of speculation, which it was desirable should
be continued and encouraged.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the clause had been sanctioned
by the Government and the House generally, and it would
be exceedingly injudicious on his part if he either consented
to postpone or strike out the clause.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the objection to the clause ap-
peared to be this. It would prevent the solvent shareholder
from disposing of his shares until all the calls were paid
up, and thus the insolvent holder would have the advantage,
for, of course, it did not much matter to him whether he
effected a transfer or not. Now to meet this objection he
would suggest that the following words be inserted :—" After
such call has been made and shall become due."
Mr. F. MAULE proposed that the consideration of the
clause should be delayed.
Mr. HAYTER approved of the clause. It would put an
end to an extremely bad practice which existed amongst
railway share speculators. They entered into engagements
without the least probability of their ever being able to meet
them, and when they became deeply involved for calls they
presumed their right to the shares by transferring them to
men of straw. If they omitted the clause there would
be no protection afforded to the honest and solvent
speculator. The moment a call was made it became a debt,
and he, for one, could see no objection why every call should
not be satisfied before any transfer was allowed. At all
events, if some such provision as this were not made, it
would be hard upon those who had entered into engage
ments, with every hope and intention of meeting
them in due course, to allow dishonest speculators to creep out
of their liabilities in the manner he had stated. He really
could not conceive, therefore, on what ground the clause was
proposed to be omitted.
Mr. HENLEY denied that a call became a debt payable
immediately on being made. He apprehended a call stood
upon the same principle as rent, for which no distraint could
be made until the expiration of the quarter. So of a call; it
could not be legally demanded until the time allowed for
payment had expired.
Mr. HAWES said that lie agreed with the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite that there did appear some reason for altering
the clause. But he would not take upon himself, at present,
the responsibility of introducing the amendment suggested
by the Hon. Gentleman opposite into every railway Bill.
Lord G. SOMERSET was disposed to think that the clause
might be improved, and at a future time he would be ready
to consider the amendment proposed. But as the clause was
introduced after much consideration and discussion, and as it
had been introduced into every railway Bill for the last
thirteen or fourteen years, he could not take upon himself
the responsibility of altering it at present, or without much
consideration.
The clause was then agreed to, as were also clauses 16,
17, and 18.
On the reading of clause 19, which determines the person
to whom dividends are to be paid,
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET proposed the insertion
of the words—" or to any of those whose names appear in the
register."
Mr. HAYTER did not see the reason why in these cases
there should be any difference between the mode of paying
dividends and that adopted at the Bank, and in all the other
public companies.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the object of the clause was to
prevent frauo.
Mr. HAYTER did not see how fraud could be more readily
committed in respect to these than in respect to those of
other companies.
The clause, with the words proposed inserted, was then
agreed to.
On the reading of clause 20, respecting the payment of
subscriptions when called for (that is by instalments),
Colonel SIBTHORP objected to allow these companies to
pay up their capital by instalments, or by " calls." He would
have the whole subscription paid at once.—(Great laughter.)
This system of calls enabled railway schemes to be taken up,
as was truly said by an Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hayter),
by " men of straw." They got up those schemes without
a shilling in the world, and then they went over the
country under the pretence of making surveys. He himself
could not endure to have his property entered upon and his
trees cut down by these marauders.—(Great laughter) He
would say that at least two-thirds of the capital ought to be
subscribed at first.—(A laugh.) He knew how the schemes
were got up. People who knew nothing about these things
were humbugged—(A laugh)—yes, humbugged—that was
the word—(A laugh)—by engineers and attorneys. Now
he did not want to make a sweeping charge against all en-
gineers and attorneys ; for he knew that many of them were
very respectable men in their way. If the public saw
a sum of money, such as 20,0001., paid down at once
in a new company they would, have some confidence.—
(A laugh.) No one could be more inclined than himself to
forward any project that would be useful to the country, but
he never would encourage or have anything to do with these
schemes, which he believed to be delusive land dangerous
The clause was then agreed to.
The other clauses up to 35 were then agreed to.
On clause 35, relating to the liability of directors, being
proposed,
Mr. HENLEY wished to know whether this clause did
not clash with clause 99, so as to involve a contradiction.
Lord G. SOMERSET said his impression was that direc-
tors would not escape from their general liability as share-
holders.
Mr. HAWES said they certainly ought not to be more re-
sponsible than shareholders.
Mr. HENLEY had great deabts whether, under this clause
a director would be exempted from that liability with respect
to his own property from which shareholders were exempted.
After some further conversation, the clause was ag,eed to.
Clauses from 46 to 98 inclusive were then agreed to without
discussion.
Clauses 99 to 110 were then agreed to.
On clause 111, empowering the company to imprison their
servants for detaining their documents, being read,
Mr. HAWES made some objections to the clause, on ac-
count of the nature of the remedy provided by it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the clause was the usual one, and
the best defence of it was, that no complaints had ever
arisen from its operation. The case of a company requiring
its servants to deliver up books, papers, vouchers, and so on,
which were its own property, was not at all analogous to the
ee antecedently
t ordinary case of a dispute between two parties in a court of
justice,theroh
t per esunsp investigation.ion was equally el
couldly in
conceive
of n
o bothf
ao
justification for detaining the property of the company.
:Utiles
Mr. SPOONER said,party was to be imprisoned,
in the absence of bail,
facilities ought to be afforded toehilad made up his accounts
im for thgespaurpneowse.compa.
wiloerts,a7S why
Yarded their
nieAslrs.holtltlEdNhLaVe
aeonuyldpo
which the old companies did not Possess, The Right Hon.
Gentleman said there could be no possible justification foran
taining books and papers. Why it might be that that w:.;

tle only way in which a clerk could prove that the
Company were indebted to him. The observation of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham was a very striking one. By
this law they imprisoned a man because he did not give up
books, and then they kept him in prison because he did not
make up his accounts, although no facilities were provided
for such a purpose.
Mr. FOX MAULE did think that the clause should be mo-
dified, and that a power should be given to ascertain whether
the offence was one for which they might take bail, as in
ordinary cases.
Lord G. SOMERSET quite concurred with the Hon.
Member, that the clause admitted of modification. But with
regard to the observations of the Hon. Member for Bir-
mingham, upon another part of it, it did appear to him (Lord
G. Somerset) that a public audit of the accounts would not
be necessary. However, he would suggest that the clause
should be passed now, and when the Bill was brought up he
would have a modified clause prepared ; but if he attempted
to do so now he might do too much or too little.—(Hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND—The clause in question was the
same as that which he was aware existed for the last twenty
years on fifty different private Bills.
Mr. HAWES concurred in the course suggested by the
Noble Lord ; but he should object to local Bills of former
times being taken as precedents.
The clause was then agreed to.

Upon clause 112 being read,
Mr. HENLEY said he thought it would require some
alteration. It was quite right that the Company should lay
hold of any man in their employment whom they had reason
to believe was about to abscond ; but provision should be
made for bringing him at once before a magistrate; for if he
were to wait for the petty sessions he should be held over
for a fortnight, or let go.
Lord G. SOMERSET concurred in the Hon. Member's
observations, and would have the clause modified.
Clauses 113 to 132 were next read, and agreed to without
observation.

Upon clause 123 being read,
Mr. HENLEY begged to call attention to its formation,
and compare it wit h clause 144. Each gave a power to make
bye-laws, but care should be taken that those laws did not
extend indiscriminately to all her Majesty's subjects; if so, a
person charged with an offence under the bye-laws, if that
were not an offence connected in some way with the Com-
pany, the magistrate inflicting a penalty for it might be liable
to an action. There was great vagueness in the wording of
the clause.

Lord G. SOMERSET believed there could be no doubt
that the clause applied only to the Company, and did not in
any way interfere with the laws of the land. The object was
to prevent smoking in the carriages, or the commission of any
other nuisance or offence.

Mr. HENLEY—IIIs only object in calling attention to it
was, that it should be made clear and plain.
Lord G. SOMERSET—Of course, care would be taken
that the clause would not admit of any doubt.
Clause 123 was agreed to.
On clause 124, which provides that no Company shall re-
duce the capital stock, being put,
Mr. HAWES wished to be informed how they were to
determine what was or was not capital stock. What
might have been the capital stock of a Company in 1835
might be very different to the capital stock of 1845. The
capital stock of a Company was constantly varying. It might
be reduced at one time, and added to at another, and he was
inclined to think it was important that they should not in-
terfere with it.

Sir GEORGE CLERK said the object of the clause was
to prevent companies dividing large dividends out of the
capital. The Committee was aware that there were bubble
companies, who had paid dividends at the time when they
were making no profit, and the consequence had been that the
public was led to place confidence in the undertaking at a time
when it was really in a state of insolvency.
Mr. HAWES admitted the force of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet's remark, but cautioned him against condemning a bona
fide company for the acts of a bubble speculation. What
was capital stock could not by any possibility be defined.
Did they mean the paid-up capital, or the nominal capital, of
a company? Now if they meant the first, he would remind
the Committee that the paid-up capital often included profits
as well as the reserved funds of a company. Then again
they gave some companies power to convert surplus shares
into capital stock, now how were they to divide one
from the other? The fact was, the capital stock of a com-
pany was always fluctuating, and it would be highly inju-
dicious to disturb the present custom.
Mr. HATTER admitted that interest and dividends were
often paid out of the capital stock of a company, but it was a
custom which had long exi: tad, and the question to be con-
sidered was, whether the practice was an evil or not? Cer-
tainly a similar clause had been introduced into some of the
early railway Bills, but had the companies acted up to it?
If they bad, he could only say it must have been a great in-
convenience. The construction of a railway occupied a
very considerable time, and towards the end of this period
the shareholders naturally became anxious to see a dividend.
In instances like this, portions of the surplus capital had been
applied to a dividend, and, as this course was generally
adopted, he hoped some modification would be introduced
into the clause, so as to meet the case of a bubble company.
Mr. GRAINGER said it would be extremely hard, if, after
portions of the profits of one year had been added to the ca-
pital stock, the company were to be precluded from applying
it to a dividend at some subsequent period.
Mr. AGLIONBY would suppose a Company with a capital
stock of 100,0001. to have purchased 100,000 acres of land at
IL each, and afterwards to have disposed of a portion of it at
a large premium. Now he wanted to know, why the company
should be precluded from dividing the profit amongst the
shareholders, and carrying the balance to the capital stock
account. Wherever the capital stock would in any degree be
reduced that would ba precluded. He entirely agreed with
the Noble Lord as to the object of the clause, and he only
wished to caution the Committee against giving greater power
than they intended.—(Hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE did not see any difficulty in the case.
He apprehended that if the Company possessed a quan-
tity of land of the value of 5,000 L, and that the Direc-
tors had an opportunity of selling it for 10,0001.,
there was nothing to preclude them from doing so,
and (as we understood) a portion of the sum realised might
be applicable to the payment of dividends upon calls, and se
of other profits. The accounts of all railway companies were
so arranged as to distinguish between the capital stock, re-
served fund, and profits, and no inconvenience had hitherto
arisen from the practice sanctioned by the clause. Although
there were prima facie objections to the practice, yet he did
not think it was in itself illegitimate, and, instead of being
inconvenient, it had been found very convenient to the
Shareholders, so that it had been universal.—(Hear.)
Mr. lIAYTER suggested that there should be a papviso
to the effect that dividends should be made out of calls ex-
cept under certain circumstances.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that between this time and the
bringing up of the report he would look more accurately
into the subject of the clause, and would consider attentively
the various suggestions which had been made in the course of
the conversation.
After a few words from Mr. Godson, Mr. Granger, and Mr.
Hawes, in which the last gentleman said that he did not see
why a modification might not be applied to this Act as was
usual with any private Act, so as to measure the restriction
it provided, the clause was agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 140, with numerous unimportant verbal
amendments, were then severally passed.
The 141st clause having been read,
Mr. HAWES said that, by this clause, it was left to two
justices to ascertain the amount to be assessed in case of
wilful damage, and he conceived that some difficulty would
arise from the decisions of such a jurisdiction.
Mr. GODSON said that, from experience in such matters,
he did not think that any unusual difficulty would ensue.
The clause was then agreed to, as well as the 142 d, 143 d,
and 144th clauses.

On the 145th clause being read,
Mr. HENLEY said that the inconsistency which he had
previously pointed out was here evident. The interpretation
of the clause was rendered obscure by the introduction of
the word " any " before two justices. Some question mutt
naturally arise as to how many or what parties this jurisdic-
tion should be given to. If the word " any" were struck out,
and the clause left with the words " two justices," it would be
definite and clear, and the difficulty, he apprehended, would

be obviated
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that it certainly
might tend to render all these Acts conformable with each
other if the word " any" were struck out, and would save the
difficulty which the Hon. Gentleman had pointed out.
On the question being put by the Chairman, the word
" any was struck out without a division.
After a few words from Mr. GRANGER, suggesting that
all informations for offences against the Act should be in
writing, clauses 145 to 155 were agreed to.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.
Lord G. SOMERSET moved an additional clause for
enabling companies more easily to recover calls from share-,
holders residing in Scotland.—The clause was agreed to.
The House resumed, and the Chairman reported progress.
The report of the Bill, as amended, was received, and the Bill
itself ordered to be printed.
Lord G. SOMERSET would move the Orders of the Day
for going into Committee on the other Bills of a similar na-
ture, for the purpose of postponing them till Tuesday next,
when he proposed the House should again sit at twelve
o'clock.
After a short conversation as to the order in which those
Bills should be taken, to suit the convenience of several Hon.
Members, Tuesday next was appointed for the day sitting.
The House then adjourned till Five o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Bank of England brought up certain
accounts.

LONDON AND YORK RAILWAY.

Mr. B. DENISON brought in the London and York
Railway Bill, which was read a first time.
NORWICH AND BRANDON RAILWAY BILL.

The Norwich and Brandon Railway Bill was brought in and
read a first time. _

Mr. THORNELY presented a petition against the Nor-
wich and Brandon Railway Bill, from the Mayor and Corpora-
tion of Norwich.

GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.

Mr. DUNCAN presented a petition against the Glasgow
Junction Railway Bill.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.

Lord ASHLEY brought in the Great Northern Railway
Bill.
BIRMINGHAM AND SHEFFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. SPOONER presented a petition against the Birming-
ham and Sheffield Railway Bill.
OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Mr. LIDDELL presented a petition from Chester-le-street,
praying the House would pass a law enacting that public-
houses should be closed on the Sabbath.

reduction of the auction duty was before the House, it was his
intention to take the sense of the House on that question.
Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice, on behalf of the Noble Lord,
the Member for Lincolnshire, that on the 6th of March, he
would more for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the em-
ployment and improvement of common lands.
Slr. MILES gave notice that in Committee on this Bill for
the renewal of the property and income-tax, he would move
a clause giving to persons assessed under schedule B, when their
property was with►n the prescribed amount, a right of arpeal,
subject to the rules and conditions under schedule D.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice, that on .Monday be would
ask the Secretary of State whether he was prepared to lay on
the table of the house the correspondence of the Poor-law
Commissioners on the subject of the sales of medical offices in
the Dublin Union.

Mr. MILES gave notice, that on the motion that the
Speaker do leave the chair on the Customs' Act, he would
move, " That is the opinion of this House that in any appli-
cation of surplus revenue towards the mitigation of taxation,
due regard should be had to the necessity of affording relief to
the agricultural interest."
SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. WALLACE teoved for a return to show the number of
appeals from the decisions of the Sheriff.' Courts of Scotland to
the Circuit Court of Justiciary, and there reheard, during each
of the last five years, ending with October, 1844, as follows :
Ist. The name of the parties in each cause. 2d. The sum in
dispute. 3d. The names of the Judges en Circuit, with the
name or names of the Judge or Judges who decided each
cause. 4th. The name of the town, the date of the trial, and
whether tried in the Court-house, or in an apartment of an inn
or hotel. sth. The result of the trial, with the amount of the
costs in each case respectively. 6th. The amount paid as fees
of Court in each case, and to whom paid, and the authority for
levying the same ; the return to furnish the above particulars
in so far as the means exist.—Ordered.
NEW ZEALAND.—EAST INDIES. _

Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on Tuesday next, he would,
on the part of another Hon. Member, move for returns relating
to New Zealand. He gave notice also, that, en the same
day, he would move fur copies of the correspondence which
bad taken place between the Government and the Directors of
the East India Company respecting the repeal or the reduc-
tion of the duties upon British Wheat and Flour imported
into British India.
AUCTION DUTIES—AGRICULTURAL RELIEF.
Mr. STANLEY begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Dorsetshire, whether in the event of his (Mr.
Banks's) motion for continuing the auction duties being car-
ried, it was his intention to propose any reduction of other
taxes to the same amount, and if so, what they would be ?
whether of those affecting agriculture or other interests ?
Mr. BA N KES said that if he should succeed in retaining the
auction duties—(Laughter)—he should certainly wish to effect
a commensurate reduction of the general taxation of the
country.—(Hear, and a laugh. )
SUGAR DUTIES.

Sir WILLIAM CLAY begged leave to put a question to the
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of
the sugar duties. He wished to know what was the intention
of her Majesty's Government as to the time when the proposed
alteration in the sugar duties should be carried into effect after
the passing of the Bill ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was intended the reduction should take place immediately after
the day on which the resolutions should have been agreed to in
the Committee, without waiting for the 'sassing of the Bill.
EXPORT DUTIES ON COAL.
. _

Mr. HOD SON HINDS wished to put a question to the
Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
on the subject of the export duty on coals, very similar to that
just put by the Hon. Member for Gateshead. Whilst it was
probable that the duty would be taken off, persons who had
coal to ship for abroad were unwilling to pay the duty. He
wished to ask when it was intended the duty should be taken
off, in the event of Parliament agreeing with the repeal?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could only
give the same answer as to the former question, that the duty
would cease from the day when the resolution should have been
agreed to in Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
CUSTOMS' DUTIES. . _

M. M. MILNES wished also to put a question to his Right
Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was aware
of the wish of his Right Hon. Friend to act with every consi.
deration towards vested capital ; and as there were several ar-
ticles included in the proposed Customs' reductions, which
would seriously affect vested capital, he (Mr. Milnes) wished
to ask whether Members would he at liberty to discuss the pro-
priety of the reduction in the case of each article by itself ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the
question put by the Hon. Member could be as well answered
by any other Hon. Gentleman as by himself. Each item
would be put by the Chairman, and any Hon. Member who
thought proper to object to any one in particular, might do so.
In answer to a question from Mr. HAWES,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated that
the remission of duty would take place from the date of the
passing of the resolution except where a particular date was
specified.

avoided taking any part in it, because it was brought
before the House so soon after he had had a contest
with the Secretary of state for the Home Department, but he
doubted whether he could give a proper vote with respect to it.
He had heard the statements of the Hon. Member for Finsbury
last year, when he distinctly stated that justice should be done
to all parties. The Hon. Member had now come forward and
asserted that justice had not been done to Itim. The Right
Hon. Baronet alto at the head of the Home Department had
stated, last session, that if he had not justice done to him he
would bring the subject forward before the House. Now he
(Mr. Ferrand) would like to know if lie was to have justice
why the Hon. Member for Finsbury should not ?—( Hear. )
If the Right Hon. Baronet was satisfied with the report of that
Committee, the lion. Member for Finsbury was not, and there-
fore he came to the House to ask for justice. He had last
night heard a Noble Member of the Treasury bench taunt the
Hon. Member for Finsbury with striking at the Right
Honourable Baronet whilst his hands were tied behind
his back. The Honourable Member for Finsbury said that
he had received a personal injury, and by refusing him redress
the Right Hon. Baronet tied his own bands, and committed
suicide on his own political character. If the Right Hon.
Baronet had acted impartially as Secretary of State in issuing
the warrants, the Committee which was appointed to inquire
into the circumstances was partially constructed. The Right
Hon. Baronet must recollect that, during 1842, according to
the inference to be drawn from the First Lord of the Trea-
sury, the Hon. Member for Finsbury was engaged in private
correspondence with persons who were supposed to be plotting
against the safety of the State. The Right Hon. Baronet
quoted an extract from a speech of the lion. Member for
Wolverhampton upon which he grounded this inference. In
January, 1842. an article appeared in the Quarterly Review
charging Members of that House with having instigated per-
sons in the manufacturing districts to break the peace. The
House would recollect how excited was the public mind
during the autumn of that year. They had not forgotten the
trials of large numbers of the working classes of Lancashire,
when one of the parties tried defended himself by quoting
largely from speeches made by Members of that [louse.
When the judge heard that question, he said that although
that had nothing to do with the proceedings beim e the Court,
yet: if the parties who had made use of that language had
been indicted, they would be punished for it. On the 2d of
December, 1842, a meeting was held in London, which it was
stated was held for the purpose of following up the tactics of
the Anti-Corn-law League in dividing the metropolis into sec-
tions and districts for the purpose of carrying on their agitation.
This was reported in the newspapers of the next day, as the
first great district meeting of section number one, held at the
Mechanics' institution, Southampton-buildings. Eight hun-
dred persons were present, including one hundred females.
Who did the House suppose presided over that meeting ? Why
Mr. Warburton, ex-M.P. for Bridport. At that meeting
strong and violent language was used within a short distance
of the Home-office. The Chairman made a speech, and called
upon Mr. Villiers to propose a resolution, which was seconded
by Mr. Ricardo. Mr. Ewart next addressed the meeting, and
said that when things had come to that pass, it would be better
that every Englishman should leave his country or sacrifice his
life in maintaining his liberty. On this declaration being
made, a Mr. Blackburn said that that was out of order, and was
an appeal to physical force. That was a specimen of
the language used at the meeting. Now, he would ask the
Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in his opinion,
the letters of the members of the Anti •Corn-law League, who
had divided London into sections and districts, after the fashion
of the revolutionists of Paris, ought not to have been opened?
If those letters were not opened, then he told the Right Hon.
Gentleman that he had acted partially in the case of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and had not done justice to the office he
held. The Hon. Member for Finsbury had made his charge in
a bold and open manner, but the Secretary of State had not
replied like a roan who felt that he had conscientiously dis-
charged his duty. He had spoken with " bated breath," and
in a faltering voice—(Ironical cheers)—and if he had not ans-
wered boldly, how much more had the Hen. Member for Ken-
dal laboured in defending the Committee. If the Hon. Mem-
ber.for:Kendal had not had nis letters opened by the Right Hon.
Baronet, then was the Hon. Member for Finsbury justified in
saying that the Right Hon. Baronet had acted from personal
feelings towards himself—that the Right Honourable Baronet
had made an improper use of the office he held for the purpose
of satisfying a " prurient curiosity" by peeping into his letters.
Rut there was another question of more vital importance
than the question between the Right Hon. Baronet and the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. He believed those two gentlemen
had been friends in their youth—( A laugh)—they had both
served in the same gallant wars, and he was sorry to hear ex-
pressions used by them, which on cool refection he was sure
they would both be sorry for.—( Hear, hear ) But that was
not to divert the House from the consideration of this impor-
tant question.—( Hear, hear.) He wished attention to be di-
rected to the right which the Right Hon. Baronet claimed to
issue warrants. The Right Hon. Baronet was a great friend
to centralisation, and was now attempting to introduce the
new poor-law into Rochdale and the surrounding districts.
By his authority and under his sanction the Commissioners
sent down an Assistant-Commissioner to form a union in
Rochdale. The ratepayers elected a board of guardians, who
refused to enforce the law.—(Cries of " Question.") They
might cry question, but he was speaking on the question of
opening letters in the Post-office. The Commissioners ob-
tained a mandamus in the Queen's Bench to compel the guar-
dians to enforce the law. Now the instruction of the guar-
dians to their solicitor for the defence passed through the Post-
office.—( Hear, hear.) He did not for a moment insinuate
that the Right Hon. Baronet would open their letters, but he
had the power to do so, and if he could do so in the case of
the Honourable Member for Finsbury he could do so in
others. The Right Hon. Baronet had issued 18 warrants in 1842.
He believed that the letters of more Members of Parliament
had been opened than those of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
—( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet was an unscru-
pulous Minister, he might have stopped the letters of those
agents who were conducting the opposition to the proceedings
of the Poor-law Commissioners, and thus become acquainted
with their defence. He did not know whether that was the
case, but this he knew, that the Poor-law Commissioners
shrunk trom meeting the Board of Guardians in the Court of
Queen's Bench. He believed they did so because if the merits
of the case were heard, they knew that the mandamus would
be quashed, and that evidence would be brought forward which
would go far to annihilate the Commissioners. It was upon
that ground more than any other, he was desirous of taking
away, not only from the hands of the present Home Secretary,
but from every other Minister of the Crown, the opportunity of
using such power at his discretion.
Mr. STRUTT said that, as a member of the Committee, he
felt called upon to make a few observations on the present dis-
cussion, and he agreed with the Noble Lord the Chairman of
the Comntittee, that the most ample statements had been volun-
tarily made by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of
State for the Home Department and other members both of
the present and of the late Government, and that if there was
any want or fault in the report of the Committee, it was not
in consequenee of any lack of evidence on the part of the wit-
nesses who were examined. The House should recollect the
circumstances under which the Committee was appointed, when
it was said that the report was defective, and that they had not
communicated enough to the House. The Househad appointed a
Secret Committee, and it was understood that the statements
made by the witnesses were confided to the honour of the
Members composing that Committee. If that were not so,
perhaps the evidence would not have been given.—( Hear.)
Now if any Member of the House repented of the decision to
which the Committee had come, he was to blame himself for
consenting that the Committee should be a secret one. If the

House wished for a different decision ; if they wished to call for
the evidence that had been taken before that Committee, it
was in their discretion to act as they thought proper. But
after the decision they had come to, he did not think it was
reasonable to complain of the Committee for having adhered to
the rule which the House itself had laid down ; and because it
had refused to commit that which would have been a violation
of all honour and confidence.—( Hear, hear.) The other
charge was that of having opened the letters of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury. The Hon. and Learned Member for Lis-
keard had asserted that there were three distinct charges ; one
of opening the letters of M. Mazsini ; a second, of opening the
letters of two Polish gentlemen ; and the third, of opening the
letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury himself. The Hon.
and Learned Member said, the Committee had reported on two
of these questions, but had declined making any report at all
on the third. Now he ,vas n)t going into any statement of the
reasons which influenced the decision of the Committee ; but
there was a great difference between these eases. The first mention
of the subject in Parliament was the presentation of the petition
which M. Maizini addressed to the House, complaining of his
letters having been opened. This was followed by the petitions
of the two Polish gentlemen he had already alluded to. These
petitions, and the allegations they contained, produced a great
impression. The general feeling was that these foreigners had
been inhospitably, harshly, and ungenerously treated. He be-
lieved that was the general feeling which prevailed in the
House and in the country. and he confessed that be himself at
first participated in it. The impression produced was so strong,
that the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary came down
to the House and made a statement that he had issued a war-
rant for the opening of these letters, and consented to the ap-
pointment of a Committee of Inquiry. To that Committee
were referred the petitions of these foreigners on this sulied.
The remaining allegation was a very different one. In that case
no admission was made by the Secretary of State that he had
opened any letters whatever, and he declined to answer the
question. Neither was it alleged last session by the Honour-
able Member fur Finsbury that his letters bad been opened, as
at that time he probably did not know it as a fact.
Now he did not wish it to be understood that he was giving the
reasons which might have influenced the Committee in their
decision in not reporting upon this allegation. He thought he
had said eneugh to show the disconnection between the three
cases, and the necessity of reporting upon one question, and
the abstaining from the reporting on another. But then it had
been said, that even supposing the. Committee were net able
to give a decided opinion upon all these particular questions of
fact, the substance of the evidence might have been given in a
summary. It was said also, that the Committee might have
reported more satisfactorily as to the degree of discretion under
which this power had been used by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Now he would only appeal to the House to consider
what the constitution of that Committee was—it con-

sisted of nine gentlemen holding very different political
opinions, and when they recollected the difficult matters with
which they had to deal, he did not think that it was at all
surprising that they should come to different conelusions as to
the particular discretion which might have been exercised in
tahneygleianretricaula l
views
caewsse.
and
mTohey
tiveswwerheiev
chhohwadinerineanll agreed
cedthe as
tExecu-
tive in the exercise of this power. He had no intention of
eulogising the Government, nor did he wish it to be under-
stood that he was whitewashing the Right lion. Baronet,
when he declared his opinion that he had been most harshly
and unfairly treated on this subject. However odious some
Gentlemen might consider this power, and however disagree-
able its exercise might be, he did not believe the Right Hon.
Baronet had done more than those who preceded him in office.
In another particular, the report was said to be unsatisfactory.
Some Hon. Members said they ought to have made
a clear and satisfactory recommendation to Parliament
as to the course which ought to be pursued for the future. He
thought if anybody who had attended much to the general
business of Committees—no matter whether of special or or-
dinary purposes—must have been struck by the different
opinions entertained by the different Members of that Com-
mittee. It was scarcely possible for them to come to any
clear decision, but in ordina-y cases nothing was more com-
mon than for the Committee to simply report the evidence
which had come before them, and leave it to the House to
draw what conclusions it might think proper; in their case,
however, the Committee was secret, and of course they were
precluded from reporting the evidence to the House. The
Committee took the only course it was competent for them
to take, and instead of pointing out the course which should
be taken for the future, endeavoured to show the different
lights in which the evidence might be viewed. If he were
asked whether he had formed any opinion on the subject, he
would say that, looking to the amount of advantage which was
obtained from the exercise of this power, and
at the same time looking at the effect which that
exercise had on the public mind, he felt bound
to give his opinion against that power remaining in its
present state. The Right Hcn. Baronet at the head of the
Government had pointed out in very forcible terms the position
in which the Government was placed in 1842. Terror per.
vaded the manufacturing districts, and a serious responsibility
was thrown upon the Government, and the Right Hon. Bora.
net truly observed that the Government would have left them-
selves open to great blame if, under such circumstances, the

Governinent had not exercised the power which the I.4sla-
tore had plaeed in +-1,2i, ) 14:
attribute blame where it was not justly attributable, but he
must say that a Minister might in such times, and under such

apprehension, exercise the power which in cooler momen
might consider as indefensible. The view which ~e was in-
clined to take of the subject was this : —he would assimilate
the proceodings under warrants of this nature to such warrants.
lie would have them granted only upon a preliminary proceed •
big, such as a written information upon oath, and the parties
against whom the warrants were is,ued should have the infor-
mation confided to them, and in case of any illegality or impro-
priety, should have redress in the same manner as in the case
of search warrants. He thought the observations of the Right.
Hon. Gentleman the Memler for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay)
were well entitled to attention, and he hoped the Government
and the House would consider the subject with a view to legis-
lation.

Its he

Mr. COLQUEIOUN complimented the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down on the speech which he had made. Ile
condemned the terms of the amendment of the Noble Lord the
Member for Sunderland, anct vastly preferred the original
motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury. He looked with
great anxiety for the opinion of the Noble Lord the Member for
London, for he said last session that if the Right Hon. Baronet
had exereised this power in a legitimate manner, he should not
vote for this Committee at all. He must confess that looking
to the constitution of those Committees—seeing that they had
been composed of men of different political persuasions, and of
great weight and respectability—he thought that as they had ex-
p: essed no opinion as to the prurience of withdrawing from the
Government the powers at present possessed by them, the House
should pay the gr satest deference to that opinion. The Com-
mittees had entirely exculpated the Right Hon. Baronet from
any charge of impropriety, and the question was now narrowed
to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Finsbury as to
whether his letters had been opened. He thought that the
Hon. Member should have brought forward his complaint
immediately upon supposing that his letters had been opened.
But with respect to the poe er itself, it was stated in the repcsrt
that it had been exercised by several Secretaries of State for
the last twenty-two years in the same manner as his Right
Hon. Friend had exercised it. If blame should fall on any, it
should fall on the Legislature, for as long as the law existed
they should support the Minister while he exercised that power
wisely and sparingly, as the Committee reported he had done.
He wotid take no part in this ungenerous and unjust pro-
needing, and he thought the Members of that House should be
the first to protect a public officer from unjust censure, who,
in the discharge of a painful office, did what he considered
would be most conducive to the public welfare. It became the
House of Commons to shelter a Minister from such attacks. He
could have no hesitation in giving a decided negative to the
motion before the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS said the Hon. Member who had just sat
down would have held very different language if his letters had
been treated in the same manner as those of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Finsbury The Government had, from first
to last, taken a very wrong course. When the question was
first introduced the Government refused to give any informa •
tion at all ; but when the people's minds became greatly ex-
cited, they agreed to a Committee of Inquiry. That Com-
mittee, it should be recollected, had been appointed by the
Right Hon. Baronet, but it was very far from giving satisfac-
tion. When the Committee was about to be appointed he
(Mr. Williams) divided the Howe upon the motion that Mr.
Duncombe should be a Member of that Committee, but
Le was excluded, contrary to the practice of the Htnase.
The Hon Member for Finsbury went before the Committee.
and they had shown no sympathy with him. Why did they not
report on his case as on the case of foreigners? Had they stated
that a warrant had been granted by the Right Hon. Baronet,
and stated the reasons for so doing, then would the Hon. Mem-
ber fur Finsbury have been satisfied. The stigma which was at-
tempted to be cast upon his fair name would have been ex-
plained and removed. That such stigma had been attempted
to be cast on his character was clear front the fact, that the
Right Hon. Member for Bwe had connected his name with
the riots which were attempted in the north in 1842 True,
that Right Hon. Gentleman had afterwards tried to explain
away this insinuation ; but where. he (Mr. Williams) asked,
was the necessity fur mentioning these circumstances at all ?
Notwithstanding the system of espionage in France, he con-
tended that there was more real liberty here—(lronical cheers)
for where would they find a minister—ot police, he would say
—who would be base enough to open, withow just. cause, the
letters of a Member of Parliament ? It was high time that
this power should be put an end to, or that such restrictions
should be placed on it, as would destroy the dangerous conse-
quences to which a wanton use of that power would lead.
They were aware that in the late disturbances in \Vales emis-
saries were sent into that country with warrants from the Se-
cretary of State in their pockets, and yet the Right Hon.
Baronet was well aware that these disturbances were merely
local, and created by the injurious conduct of the magistrates
appointed by himself. He should support, with great plea-
sure, the original motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. B. COCHRANE did net think the opening of the
letters of the Honourable Member east any stigma
upon his character, as he could not be supposed
to be aware of their contents, even if written by persons
discontented with the Government. He could per'ectly un-
derstand why the Right Hon. Baronet refused to answer the
Hon. Member's question. One Hon Member said that the
question, as respected the Hon. Member for Finsbury, stood
alone. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) did not think so. Why, all
whose letters had been opened might call on the Right Hon.
Baronet in the same manner, to explain his reasons for the ex-
ercise of that power. The Right Hon. Baronet, lie thought,
would find it very inconvenient to do so. But how, he would
ask, did the Hon. Member for Finsbury know that his letters
had been opened at all ?—(Cheers and laughter. )
He that is robbed, not wanting what is stolen,
Let- him not know it, he is not robbed at all."

(Laughter.) And, therefore, he thought the House ought
to know on what proof the Hon Member grounded
his charge against the Right Honourable Baronet.
The Hon. Member who had just sat down, had alluded to the
French post-office. Why, it was a general practice in that
country to open letters.
An HoN. Al EMBER.— How do you know?
Mr. B. COCHRANE—Why, he had been some time on
the Continent, and he was aware that such was the constant
practice. There was a great objection to the amendment on
the original motion, because it would be constituting the
House of Commons a house of appeal for every trifling matter
in which Hon. Members would think themselves aggrieved.
The House was certainly a legal body to correct abuses, but
still it was absolutely necessary that some trust should be
placed in the Executive, or the House would find that it could
not get through the business of the country at all. If the Hon.
Member could say, and say it sincerely, that his charac-
ter was injured, then indeed he would have some ground
for demanding this Committee, hut the Hon. Member knew
as well as he (Mr. B. Cochrane) did, that his character was
not affected in any degree by this proceeding. The hardship
in the case, he thought, (pressed upon the Government, be-
cause the accusation against the Right Hon. Baronet must be
exceedingly painful to that Minister, as it encouraged a sus-
picion in the minds of those who were not conversant with
this power, or the necessity there was for its exercise. Ile
could not support the Hon. Member in this matter.
Mr. BLEWITT said, that while admiring the eloquent
speech of the Right Hon. Member the Secretary at War, he
could not agree with him iii every part of that speech. 11 his
letters had been opened, as had been those of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury, certain it was that he should have acted in
preeiseiy the same manner. He thought it a most improper
proceeding on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet, the Secre-
tary of State, and the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her
Majesty's Government. He was sorry that the Right Hon.
llaronet was not in his place, because he ( Sir. li'mvitt) wished
to refer to several cases in which the Right Hon. Baronet had
sheltered himself behind the authority of her Majesty's name.
With regard to the Post-office, be dial not think that the pur-
poses and institution of that office had been properly explained.
The Post-office was never meant to be an object of tyranny.

c..._ . _
He would ask a question of the Solicitor-General, whom he
saw in his place, and he would wish to knew if the Acts of
Anne did give any responsibility to open letters without a war-
rant having been previously granted by the Secretary of State?
He felt he had trespassed too long upon the House already,
though he could say much mere upon the subject ; but he
would now conclude by saying that the motion of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury should have his most cordial support.
Lord C. HAMILTON had but a few observations to make,
in consequence of what had fallen from the Hon. Membei who
had just sat down. He should c infess he thought it rather a
singular ground of complaint that the Hun. Member for
Knaresborough had made out, namely, that injustice had been
dents the lion. Member for Finsbury, because more warrants
had not been issued.--( Laughter. )
Mr. FE RRAN D said the words he had used were that the
Right Hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, had acted with par.
tiality.
Lord C. HAMILTON—WeII, however, he should say, he
had heard with great regret this rather un-English attempt to
raise a cry against the present Government. Ha would admit
that the practice was open to objection ; but he would say that
the manner in which it had been brought before the House,
afforded him just cause of complaint. He shiiuld also confess
that some Hon. Members, in speaking on the subject, had
used language that would not be tolerated in private society,
which ought not to have been listened to in that House, and
language similar to which had never yet come under his obser-
vation. But, now, let him ask, what was the extent of the
mischief that had been done the Hon. Member for Finsbury ?
—lt appeared to him—( Lord C. Hamilton)—that the mischief
consisted not so much in what had been done, as the way in
which it had been represented. He did not mean to give the prac-
tice his unqualified approbation, but he did think that means had
been resorted to, to surround it with unnecessary difficulties.
—( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he would
wish to call attention. It did strike him as remarkable, and
it was a source of pain to him, to have observed the continued
silence with which this subject had been treated by the Noble
Lords opposite, who recently held office, and who during that
period had exercised the very same power. He would say
that, considering the high positi in of those Noble Lorsis. their
talents, and their character, it was subject of regret to him to
have observed them re.oain silent on this occasion, while
the discussian was carried on with so much acrimony, and the
whole current of public odium was poured out against the pre-
sent Government. But it was now too late—the discussion had
gone forth, and the public mind was poisoned—the evil could
not be remedied. Much as the Hon. Member conceived he
had to complain of, he ( Lord C. Hamilton) begged to remind
the House of the case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, who had
suffered as a common felon.—( Cries of " No, no.") Well,
at least, he had been detected in correspondence with
those who had been convicted of sedition ; and that

never could have been known hut for• the exercise

of this power.—( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) He did not
wish that Members of Parliament should be exempted from
this power of the State, becaute he thought that would be
odious and invidious; but if the power was to be altogether
done away with, how would the State get the information
they required?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Fins-
bury, it had been stated, had suffered insult and contumely by
the opening of his letters, and that his constituents also had
felt it as an insult to them ; but that was ridiculous.—( Hear,
hear.) Who was it that made the affair public ? Who told
it to his constituents? Why, the lion. Member himself—
( Laughter)—and too glad was he to have it to publish.—
( Laughter.) Very glad the lion. Member was to have been
made a pseudo martyr of.—( Laughter.) But it had been
said that the lion. Member had been the victim of a cuing
insult. Now, in cases of libel, the amount of injury sus-
tained should be proved before a jury could give a verdict;
but in the present ease, so far from injury having been sus-
tained, he (Lord C. Hamilton) believad the Hon. Member
had never made such a hit in his life.—( Laughter.) He ( Lord
C. Hamilton) did not wish to make charges, but he would just
mention this•--He had heard reports, he knew not how true,
to the effect that the means by which the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had obtained his information were those in the em-
ployment of the Postmaster-General, and they must have
committed a breach of confidence in order to enable the Hon.
Member to put together the vast mass of evidence he had ob-
tained ; and that might account for the lion. Member de-
clining to bring forward his witnesses, who, he said, might
lose their situations if he did so. The Hon. Gentleman could
not say that the nine gentlemen who composed the Committee,
and were sworn to secrecy, would have betrayed his witnesses.
The anxiety which he showed to protect them was, therefore,
very suspicious. He hoped the House would not accede to the
motion or the amendment.
Mr. WATSON would not follow the example of the Noble
Lord in personalities. for he must say the Noblo Lord had
shown more zeal than discretion, and that the attack on the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was nut only unnecessary, but un-
justifiable. But it was always the case when any one came for-
ward to make charges against the heads of a party for the young
recruits to rush forward to the defence.
Lord C. HAMILTON—I belong to no party.
11•• WATSON—As to the ,e,sv
Finsbury, he thought the report unsatisfactory in many respects.
When it was appointed, although it WU Vini)o3o4 of Hon.

Members, he fit there were wanting upon it men who ouglst°
have b en on it, amongst whom was the Hon. 31erehair,t,
Finsbury, who had given all the information, and upon fan,
motion the Committee had been granted. —( Hear, h from,
for
that case the usage of the House had been departed t.
it was almost a rule that the Member who obtained the arpr,,
ment of a Committee, should at as the Chairman of that CO
rnittee.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. 13aronet took
for not having put lawyers on the Committee. Now he le
00
Watson) was not much in favour of having lawler'isot
Committees, but here was an inquiry both into
bia
constitutional law, in which the presence of
tos,
Learned Friend the Member for Worcester. Sir The
that
Wilde ought s of to have been dispensed with, and, °hoes
Committee, the Solicitor-General ought also to have .sce
placed.—( Hear, hear.) When the question aas first ratoitc
he (Mr. Watson) asked the Right Hon. Gentlemen °PiPtte°
where they found the law which enabled them to °Pen told
in passing through the Post-office. The Solicitor-Genert ct of
him that it was by the statute of Anne, confirmed by the a' ~,at
Victoria, but the House had seen, from the Lords' report,
the statute of Anne gave no such authority.—(Hear'rttert:
And the Act of Victoria made it a misdemeanor to open ,he; Se'
but it gave power to detain letters, on the warrant of - the
cretary of state; so that, according to the Lords' repot_to,o
authority to open lette,s depended on common law. Nallthe
common laie, what was the fac.? lie had examirteds.itt for
books and reports, and he could not find a single authori .00
such a power.—( Hear. he: r. ) The Secretary of Statei,Dell
claimed the right to seize, read, open, make copies, rese4e,,oe
return the letters of any individual.—(Hear. hear.) r't ~, of
Secretary of State, was not. content to take the bold s
seizing and making putslic use of letters for public purrse,leie
had been done by his erectecessers.—( Hear, heart) etaff
raised a great constitutional questton—•‘ Has the Seer, 0,6
of State a right to open private letters passing throuP..l,he
Post-, dice ?" He (lir. Watson) said there was no sucks; °the
The was a question which must now be detertnind• the
extent to which that alleged right had been exercised, °D 'The
Government and its subordinates knew.—( Cheers.)
o.cte
Hon. Member for Weymouth said that the courts of Isw jeit
the tribunals before which this question should be tried. 01(1
who were to be the witnesses? The Secretary of Statt.e.:ex
not be examined in a court of law upon the acts of 111 re t°
vernment. The subordinates of the Pceb-office were strfe
secrecy.—( Hear, hear.) But if the Government roce
sirous to try the legality, let them acknovtiledge the fat‘ triab
duce the warrants, and bring the whole questien fairlY wet
—(Cheers.) General warrants to seize papers, such
issued in the time of Wilkes, were issued in the time 'Pt elleoi
beth, Cromwell, and the Ist and 2d Charles. And Yede'otareu
the question came before the courts of law, they were the re
to be illegal. The cases were extremely analogous to e 0
One
sent—two particulars were very much in point. gee
that of the Editors of the North Briton. Tbd'oesge°
tion was tried, and the jury gave large i f
Jsr
against those who issued the warrants. The Lord Cheita late
tice, on that occasion, laid down, as it was well know'''.
that " no warrant could be issued except on sufficles-ef tb°
dente. The jury were not to consider the meanne..e.a
Ca
plaintiff's condition, but to bear in mind that they sa rbitrO,
gistrate over all the King's subjects exercising, lie'
power."—(Hear, hear.) It seemed to him (tar. Wa,t''s Para°
there was very little difference between seistteg tnTietters.o
and detaining, reading, copying, and resealing his, h
(Cheers.) The next case was that of Ent inck, vahl•here
be found in the 19th volume of the State Trials. the p t
opinion of the Lord Chief Justice appl.ed precisely te sostglo
sent question. 'the Lord Chiei Justice said that " the gad 11l f
had been issued without it formation previously taken' • 0
such a course was without precedent, except in t to
Justice Scroggs."—(Cheers.) " There was no law reaceol'„,
such an act, If it could be done, there would be n°
society, for a man's papers were ofiert his dearest 101;1• ',
(Much cheering.) But if that were a right at 000 becl/y
surely the Ministry could adduce some instance in t t of 410
some opinion, some die:um would appear in some tf Apes
volumes of our reports. But that could not be e
was sanctioned by no authority whatever.—( fleanvhi:ordi%y
usage was pleaded in favour of the right. In shatter!
reign Roger de Kendal received a warrant to detsttl„not
mine all letters from France. In the time of CrornTorti,
in council were issued for seizing papers. But thos`reout't)/
were issued in very dieerent circumstances from tbeEPr seee,!l
( Hear, hear.) Still this furnished no precedent le eitio
detaining. reading, and copying a man's letter';Boolty
events, in no case had it ever been said that there o'o
to examine letters. —(Hear, hear. ) But it was,s`t-ealego)
practice had existed since the Reve'eitien. Of 0,11!/Ipar, be„ its
that? They had only a se: ies of illegal acts.---
al▪ op
Mr. Justice Yates said, "If you show me an illega," oe
foundation, that does not make it law.”—( Cheers.) fret:thee
he (Mr. Watson). "If you show me thisuse " 1.00
creation, you d:, not make it one jot the less illee;oedl.;:ee
were warrants authorised by law, but only when 1/st, Opel
informations, and in these cases there were none' tors' e'fo
office Acts there was no auth ,rity to open „,osltl 14,
was only a clause to exempt the Postmaster from rot' 0!
detaining letters upon the Secretary of State's este oil
was of great importance what was the „Gel' t!ss
the law, and be called upon the SoliAelt.'ercletleci
to state on what principles of law he u„e sjta,ttriets;
conduct of the Government. It had beeeo th%siejs
an excuse, that discontent prevailed in cetalfet
But he said that was no justification whatever 4 oleo
warrants against any individual. The disturh,eoo thanes
the country did not justify one tymenical act, wno, o'oool
required that no warrant should be issued unless r-eacl 9i Of
tion preqiously taken. The Hon. Gentleman theme tha 00
extracts from the report of the Committee, to I, es
had no knowledge of the grounds on whisk Sir
issued the warrants, h. yond his owu word that he jt 10
from an anxious desire to preserve the rabbet peat ton +4;rj:o
the highest importance to know what the infortaa'etd t.01,,t,t1
1817, as they all remembered, warrants were repeOcic.fc
Nottingham, and other places, and it would beere /itet:o
that when men were after wasds convicted, they wyte-( tiert
upon the evidence of the spies Rho instigated the col)
—and who knew that those spies did not write_ ol6ncet,lreo.e)t
re
their victims, which being -opened in the po-"t eae tes
at once the cause of suspicion and its eoefirrnat'o°;elo9
His Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for 1311feteoor,r
alluded to the circumstance of some individuals wilseeo,cebt
at York. They were tried for a treasor.able,,Va. thet"t
but certainly they never corresponded with the t-1°"-thai,ttb
for Finsbury. But let them suppose for a mom° 010,5t,1
individuals, before their trial, were cerrespenditlie,
ty
legal advisers, and sending in t heir lettersohicli
ere
upon which their defence was to be founded, be °•cti!4'
find its way into the hands of the Government, W 00 coo.
use that information for the purpose of obtaining'iletii,oseod;
Was not such a power tinjust ?—( Hear, hear.) for '4041
fess that he did not agree with the Hon. Membet,totts,
when he talked of the power possessed by foreignreseno
and examine correspondence passing through the ditable use'r,
practice all events, he did not consider the ,— cre d
ire°
nation, and the opening of letters in Ettgla° neettb sljls
stitutionat and illegal.—( Hear, hear.) It W2' 000 sti
tart for Hon. Members to be of this opinion, 'l2 tsar 'of t!'ite
question could not be brought before a court °4leittee,s:o4,,
only remedy was in the appointment of a Cor.:lty to , .sots,'
House. That Committee should have author' 'ctero
evidence and to report to the House, s° char
lution might be come to as to the nature 'tat' regettbst
these warrants. This had been the case wit vete°. 0,,11
game-laws last session, and the result had reati,44, 01,0 t
House was put in possession of va!uable infc4rceerl'ltott to
subject. There was no kind of arbitrirY pth¢ o'll reititie
had not been used at some time or other hY
.reel'' it 40
of this country. But he thought it was extrri,, thin,3
make a personal matter of this inquiry. lie ea' of
nu answer to the case that the Itte It rei it
opened under the usage of the countryo' tia
ene'ate be
excuse to open letters and to turn /le /rirealt:oe
Mr. Fox or the Whigs had done the same• e, it des old „le
was no answer to the charge, for, he thouet". ft $0:505100
both to Nk hags and Tories if they had el• ne so. they 'oed
been much better of the Government if. wbene eeetcd octo
office, and round that their predecessors had
fls,itela_a•
power, to have abolished the practice altogethee,tted
course been adopted, it would have refi thvato
Minister, and insured him the confidence
the, ope° be jiti
tion of the people. As to the inquiry into Vi'llsbutit Wire
letters of his Hon. Friend the Member for reg to °,el3
not conceive how any human being could obje
the lett,
0e yes
not think the Government had a resin too Pet!riiariteo,oetits,
Ham Friend. He Wa3 a Member o Pl'stters"l'ob'steo
public duties to discharge, and to have hisn titttenel)
derogatory, not only to hum, but to the et, s hear. 00c10$
fleart,coed, d oe,
had the honour to represent.—(
in the bad reign of Charles the et.osideroi'cii
corrupt times of Horace Walpole, it was e. 5%_ torl dal
breach of Parliamentary privilege to del` as
:t o.los,
letters of a Member of that Huse. It w °lO ',o,
privilege to examine the letters of any indhi:;etter,tlt°,l,,,teie,o!
House ; but to open, there was no douhtet eseeptel,,,retsf 001'
her of Parliament was manifestly `,„ai tbe,ch
under the warrant of her Majesty's rine!Aetbet,„,
State. Now, they had a right to inquire
e'ied tie
0_ tb,
Member for Finsbury's letters had been
that
toted
..Vreaut; to
warrant, and that was the only course t.l the wa"reistli,
unless the Right Hon. Baronet would
cla Peel oolvo
tape of the House. lie must have re e!iti oot Pitigh,L4
induce him to issue the warrant, for he
co, , the ww,
i>sl
front a mere itnaginery naotive—at all event"tify hi! fit `l,lO
Baronet had no such information to it" guite° e▪
edePted.
warrant, a breach of privilege had been ce°:tild fuorie.o444
this dictum had been laid down, and h 4; the moo°, the,
on what prim ip!e Hon. Members opposett,!__ it, ono this Sot%
The Soice of the country called louds I°,l„neaftouitY tho
must he had to satisfy them upon whattnit° the c
90 o, 130),
of cpening letters was based. It was Q,set,,ler
thefo
know how the Government jit=tified !.11
_lived!!
of f t..e,
power. His Hon. and Leaned Frien.d,,te7l to t!eietclingto.e
(Mr. J. S. Wortley) last nieht was.tie;ii the oere it
logs of the Right Hon. Baronet. racrt. but d net
va it,
Right Hon. Baronet must have been,,
iebate--hatowe,:eiee.Po
ings of no other persons hurt by this of that .; 60' the`
dignity been cast upon an Hon. Memnnuels. that t,ho woe, o'lllo3
it not derogatory to his honour to l;_atiun
_rtetrei,
of his country had received some infra ,lire
.01Yea„..b
cretY
to information that e had been guilty
°.recer!he of „ter co
was the the Goverretnie_ot;atits we tth'ege bres.r,
they obtained it ? Were their ransviers t 0 fair' fair,o3', flee' 3
The house hail a right to demand
not ju'l :4 of e 4(013
gatories, for if the information was. is, at 0005,
of privilege had been committ 01 te5....,b, 0_0,01111,3
rants, as would be seen by the `evolution,e, big IlTer
to in 1735. In conclusion he callede
that
the Pi/ old
Learned Friend to satisfy tl:easHfoounnsd.ed upon legal .-e til.•
°J
b't
ing and examining teams
enced .tbs
authority.—( Cheers. ) 'ER kla ecim°l debate v'ijis °ter
The SOLICITOR-GE:S ' Sinful he wa sly ,
offirt for 09
ever been his ill-fortune to lidstealre3dY beeinmpos',ibelecen
within t en by
that was the most disagreeable and
House, and he thought it hal.,
have been h" LOS 10$
crastinated. It would, liovrevedt r
after the reference, h t_e pOillte tenber f°,rj °:
to him by the Noble Lord the,_ .
d the • attene°,o *.
anti by his Hon. and Learne I upon tnei,. Trpts‘oo
night, to abstain from ttesslih'aesTert most aout„!4. anetisprestit,e
House. Notwithstarelingt lace that of the „er ',et°
cowls e the of 04
procoodings which had taken manye • 11,0..
standing he regretted mest.Leile:elyeral tone shoett"it the of
which had been used, anti t"
Nl:rnferbetr'eftetrwhhiee 04.1 ° gate; it,e
hatoileen awbl tend,' "-I
desk(
dmeahkaet ,b lei es throuus
ltde de
malnrteednatno he° °File o°tselt
e the
portance of the subject a
) It aPlia' ,et to fit pr e hPi
that House.—( Hear, hear.;.:en %%tie rresiseeenve, eh 13 las,
hi a most extraordinary p tti
and re the pr 'P- the 00 .(ter
'oninduticl:nOthbeser;
ury, who, esition tabue. o's°l,
deliberationSle ffibr for F.no'b-ea tion °f and Pths 111'.
tWhiethlidoune.ns.dera
submitted to the c`-' keen re,ise;a9 by he
most have , r it hae
proposition Whetne
vice of others, or as
Pared oscine cunlea
considered by him• .s ewe better tu. °Tr° e'frotne
Solicitor-General) was not iesee
Member teas o,,stoite
ogle
,oe
it was the Hou•n some est
eeorelieg; jeto
original terms of his ttretelotiona
peered to consider as obj
had been debated in a
rernte, after nold reec rte r f
u obe
of the second night's dele.a.,,_bees.
0.110 h
„an
e,
addressed, by all Hon. 1,1 I;u_riaile, to e Ilion- )jettioettlie
Lord the Member for Stlo3:o,ition Le the
.3 t t
the motion, in which ppe jele elotne"t,, • st‘ti obi,
i an atn icsbor', b°
Finsbury was rot f
verd wi'h Sh/e irit ' .0 0
odellebdiefoarnmd,awahli
jaittid,,eo3o
tihi
r1,400:,,rf
"" `member servile 'll rat)
the
lion.Sund e r 1
Gentleman,and a m e
the Soliett.lemberlii,.e ,• of
was rather surprising to the Von. ; 01V '-
amendment was not conceived any
it was not supported by., ieeeL• "ovieciA for,
1" ,-,,,e and a loolto.
they
Sunderland was an
Tbe/ were aware that be w. bv

A
1

-r' -'