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

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE was glad to hear that. The
public wished to know the full extant to which the
power had been exercised by the Government and their
predecessors. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that
he wished to state the truth, the whole truth, and no-
thing but the truth. He had hoped that the Right Hon.
Baronet was about to make a statement of the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; but he had
not stated one word about Mr. Mazzini. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had stopped short, and had said that he
(Mr. buncombe) had asserted that the Dublin bag and
the Brighton bag had been called for, and that he had
said that every body's letters bad been opened. Now
that was not what he had stated. He had said
that there was a secret department at the Post-
office where these deeds of darkness were done ; he said
that not only had the letters of individuals been opened,
but that, occasionally, different bags had been carried
there, kept for an hour and a half, and then returned to
the sorters.—(Hear, hear.) The sorters, of course, did
not know what letters had been abstracted. He said, for
instance, the Dublin bag, or the Brighton bag, might be
called for. He had every reason to believe that those
bags had been called for.—(Cheer:.) He had not said
that everybody's letters had been opened at the Post-
office, but he had said that the roving commission which
had gone down into the manufacturing districts had, per-
haps, opened everybody's letters, and he hoped the Com-
mittee would inquire into the conduct of the roving
commission in 1842.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped they
would have no scruple if any letters of his had been
opened in saying so.—(Hear, hear.) He called upon
them to repeat specially if any letters from the Albany
had been opened. He had been informed that the Al-
bany letters had been stopped. He had no doubt the
Right Hon. Baronet thought he was only in the execu-
tion of his duty if he had so done.—(Cheers anti laughLer.)
He did not know why the Committee should be secret.
As it was, the responsibility of the investigation would
rest wholly upon the Government ; and if he sb ould
have reason to believe that the Committee had not done
their duty, and had not satisfied the public, he st.ould
not be precluded from again opening the question, and
proposing some other mode of investigation.— (Hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn, and the question was
put on Sir James Graham's amendment for the appoint -
ment of a Secret Committee.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished the words to which he

had alluded to be introduced.
Sir R. PEEL had no objection to the introduction of
the words " the extent to which, and the circumstances
under which that authority had been exercised."
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that the words should be
rendered still more stringent.
Sir R. PEEL thought there was no necessity for any
alteration. The Committee had full powers, and was
not composed of lawyers, who would quibble.
Mr. WAKLEY said that there was not one word
about resealing letters, and the Committee were. not
bound to make any observations on that part of the
question. He suggested that the words "to report as
to the reclosing an resealing of letters" should be in-
troduced.
Mr. ROEBUCK reminded the Right Honoufable
Baronet that it did not require a lawyer to quibble.
Mr. MACATJLAY thought the powers which were
given to the Committee included everything necessary
for the fullest investigation.
Sir J. GRAHAM had carefully considered the terms
of the motion, and had studiously made them as wide as
possible. He proposed to have a most complete, thorough
investigation, and he hoped the motion would be per-
mitted to stand in its original terms.
The motion was then agreed to.
Sir J. GRAHAM having been given to understand
that Mr. H. Drummond had practised as a lawyer, pro-
posed to substitute the name of Mr. Wilson Patten in-
stead of Mr. IL Drummond on the Committee.
Mr. HORSMAN did not object to any of the Mem-
bers of the Committee, but he thought it extremely
desirable that the Hon. Member for Finsbury should be
on it. He would, therefore, suggest that two names be
removed, and the names of the Under Secretary of the
Home Department, and the Hon. Member for Finsbury
be substituted for them.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the House would be satisfied to
let the Committee stand as it had been originally pro-
posed. Let it not be said of that Committee, as had
been said of another tribunal—" I looked for a judge
and I found an accuser."—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman had expressed strong opinions on the sub-
ject—so strong that he was satisfied he himself would
not wish to be on the Committee. They meant no per-
sonal disrespect to the Hon. Gentleman, but they followed
the precedent which had been set by Hon. Memoers
opposite in the case of the Hon. Member for Cork,
against whom the Hon. Member for Blackburn had pre-
ferred an accusation, which had been referred to a Select

Committee, from which the accuser was excluded. As
they had acted in conformity with that precedent, and
as the Committee was composed of five members oppo-
site to four members on that (the Ministerial) side of
the House, he trusted there would be no further oppo-
iition to the appointment of the Committce.
Mr. SHEIL said that the case alluded to by the Right
Ron. Baronet was the case of an individual—this was

the case of the public. A more analagous case was
the Election Committee of the Hon. Member for Bath,
who was a member of the Committee himself. although
he was the accuser. It was objected that this was a
Secret Committee—one great point of that objection
would be obviated if the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
who would thoroughly investigate the subject, and in
whom the public had confidence, were appointed
a member of it. The name of Lord Sandon was then
proposed as a member of the Committee and agreed to.
On the question being put that Mr. Wilson Patten
be a Member of the Committee,
Mr. HORSMAN moved as an amendment, " That
Mr. Thomas Duncombe be a Member of the Committee."
Mr. DUNCOMBE hoped the Hon. Member would not
divide the House on the subject. He could assure the
[louse he had not the slightest wish to be a member
of the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He had certainly
made strong allegations, and as the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman stated that there was no foundation whatever for
them, he trusted there would be the fullest investiga-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) He must say, however, that he did
not. think the Committee had been fairly selected— not
according to the customary forms of the House. The
selection of Committees had been partly by Mem-
bers of the Government and partly by Members
of the Opposition—he thought that was the course
which ought to have been pursued on this occasion.
Lord J. RUSSELL would vote for the Committee as
at present constituted. He thought they had. been
named in a fair spirit ; but he must say that he could
not consider the Hon. Member for Finsbury in any way
disqualified from being a member of it.
Dr. BOWRING thought the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury ought to be a member of the Committee, as that
lion. Member represented public opinion without the
walls of that House.—(Laughter.) That Hon. Member
had exhibited peculiar delicacy and modesty on this
occasion.—(Great laughter.) He was quite sure the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government
would admit that his Hon. Friend had acted with pecu-
liar modesty.—(Renewed laughter.) It would very
much allay the feeling which existed in that House, if
the Hon. Member for Finsbury were appointed on the
Committee.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the members
of the Committee as already proposed were agreed to.
Mr. JAMES begged leave to move the appointment of
Mr. Duncombe as a member of the Committee.
The House divided on the motion, when there ap-
peared—
For the motion
Against it .. .
Majority against the motion —76
Mr. WILLIAMS then moved that Mr. Hume's name
be added to the Committee.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion • but it was
withdrawn after a few words from Sir R. Peel and other
Hon. Members.
Mr. DUNCOMBE then moved, that indemnity be
given to those witnesses who might be examined before
the Committee. Officials at the Post-office, whose bread
depended on their situations, would not. give evidence
unless they were guaranteed against loss. If those
men employed in the inner office admitted before the
Committee that they had opened letters, they laid them-
selves open to an indictment, as they could not produce
the warrant.
Sir R. PEEL said the Government would, of course,
take upon themselves the whole responsibility which
might attach to the matter, and none of the subordi-
nates should be subjected to punishment for acting ac-
cording to orders. Regarding indemnity to witnesses,
any suggestions made by the Committee on this head
would, of course be attended to.
Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice of his intention to move
that the evidence taken before this Committee be printed.
The Committee was again named as originally consti-
tuted, and finally agreed upon.
STATE OF PRISONS.
Mr. MACKINNON rose to move for a " Select Com-
mittee to consider the reports of the inspectors of pri-
sons, and the state of discipline in the gaols, for the
adoption of an uniform system of punishment, with such
improvements in the management as can be safely
adopted." Improvements had been made in the state of
prison discipline by the Noble Lord the Member for
London in 1835, and great advantage was derived from
those improvements. The reports of the inspectors sug-
gested several improvements, but there was a great
variation in their views. Under those circumstances, he
thought it desirable that a Committee should be ap-
pointed to inquire into the subject, and till they made
their report the country would not be satisfied. There
was a variety of systems recommended, some re-
commending the silent system, some the factory system,
and others other systems. If a Commission was ap-
pointed it would not satisfy the public; but if a Com-
mittee was appointed, he thought it would give satisfac-
tion. Before the system of solitary confinement was
adopted, he thought they ought to have a Committee to
inquire if it was not the most dreadful punish-
ment that could be inflicted on human nature.
This system bad been tried in Pittsburg in America,
and it was not successful. The silent system had been
tried in Pentonville, and the Penitentiary, but that
produced the most disastrous effect upon the minds of
the convicts. It was the object of several persons to
take away from the magistrates the power they possessed
and to give it to a central board. He wanted a Com-
mittee to investigate whether this was desirable. lie
doubted of the principle of centralisation, which seemed
to be the order of the present times. There was cen-
tralisation of the poor-laws, centralisation of turnpikes,
centralisation of banks, and centralisation of railways.
He would not object to the Right Hon. Baronet being at
the head of a Board for carrying out a system of uniform
prison discipline, but there was no guarantee that some
person in which ho could place less confidence
would not be placed in the Home-office.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed there could be no Government who wished
to centralise less than the present Government ; and
' yet, from peculiar circumstances, a system of centrali-
sation was spreading which might lead to serious inroads
on the liberty of the subject. It had been said that the
object he sought would be effected better by a Commis-

52
128