The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-26 00:00:00

I operiesi—one no doubt in correspondence with friends in
the Austrian states, the other with the Pope's dominions.
Unless the Ministers declared that they had not acted
for the gratification of foreign governments, be could
not see how their Lordships, with any sense of propriety,
could refuse to inquire into the grievance complained of.
Could any body say that it was for the purpose of avoid-
ing a foreign war, that the opening of these letters had
taken place? The matter ought not to he allowed to
rest. The character of the country had been compro-
mised, and it WAS indispensable to the honour of the
country that further investigation should be made.
Lord BROUGHAM, in answer to .what his Noble
Friend (the Marquis of Clanricarde) had said with re-
spect to • the retention of certain documents
of importance by the Postmaster-General, when
he left office, would only say that it was absolutely
necessary that the Postmaster-General, in leaving office,
should retain those documents as they were his :protec-
tion. The warrant was only in the proper custody when
it was in the custody of the Postmaster himself. With
respect to the motion before their Lordships he (Lord
Brougham) could not see how they could fairly call on a,
public officer, merely upon the assertion that a power
had been exercised, to produce certain documents and
papers. Another objection to the motion was, that it
would prelim no good result. He did nct think that
the production of the warrant would throw any light on
the, subject.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE explained.
Lord DENMAN did not consider that there was any
danger of impeachment of the conduct of the Secretary
of State. Ile (Lord Denman) knew of no circumstance
which would lead him to say that the Secretary of State
had acted improperly in the exercise of this most odious
and pernicious power, but he thought that circumstances
had been made the subject of public discussion, and it
was therefore now imperative on Parliament to inquire
into the mode in which the power had been exercised.
It appeared that letters had been opened belonging to
an individual who, it would appear, had not been in-
volved in any treasonable concern or matter whatever.
In exercising this power the Secretary of State was re-
sponsible to no one. He thought the warrants ought
never to be issued unless with the express concurrence
Of the whole Government. He thought they ought not
te allow such power to be continued without respon-
sibility. This was a question of right and wrong, and
ought to be fully considered.
The Earl of DEVON said that from the speech of the
Noble Lord it would appear that he advocated the repeal
of the existing Act. Ile did not see what could be
even if' the warrant were obtained, for it would
g'ive no information except that it was issued, and that
was admitted. If the motion before the House were
granted, it would justify similar motions in every other
case. He did not think there were sufficient grounds for
the motion of the Noble Earl.
Earl RADNOR replied. He did not see what grounds
could be alleged for their motion, except that the act
had been done without any probable cause of justifica-
tion. He would not persevere in his motion, but would
reserve to himself the power of renewing the subject on
a future occasion.
The motion was then withdrawn.
~
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE laid on the table a re-
port from the Commission of National Education in
Ireland: -
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Earl of WIIARNCLIFFE moved the second
reading of this, Bill, and explained the object of it,
but in so low a tone of voice that he was nearly inaudi-
ble in the gallery. The trusts were to be uader the
direction of a board, consisting of the Lord Chancellor.
the Master of the Rolls, and ten others, to be appointed
by her Majesty's Government, who were to be such as
would possess the confidence of her Majesty's Roman
Catholics in Ireland. .
The Earl of WICKLOW expressed his concurrence
in the Bill. He was the more gratified with it because
it showed that the subject of an endowment for the
Roman Catholic clergy was under the consideration of
the Government. Ile was afraid, however, that the
present Bill would render that most wise and salutary
measure most difficult.
The Bishop of EXETER supported the measure be-
cause he thought it was but an act of justice to the
Roman Catholics to place them on the same footing as
the other Dissenters of the country. With regard to the
endowment of the Roman Catholic Church, that was a
measure which would receive all the opposition in his
power, from whatever source it proceeded, because it
would be inconsistent with the support which was given
to the Established Church. He thought the grant to
Maynooth ought to be a warning to them not to endow
the Catholic Church.
Lord MONTEAG LE expressed his concurrence in the
Bill, but if they wanted to elevate the character of the
priesthood of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they must
increase the grant to Mavnooth, and not rest satisfied
with allowing them the miserable pittance they now re-

ceived.
The Earl of HADDINGTON could not conceive how
the operation of this Bill could have any reference to the
endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy. Her Ma-
jesty's Government believed the measure would be sa-
tisfactory to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and as
such the Government had great pleasure in bringing it
forward.
Lord HATHERTON said that he was sure this mea•
sure would be hailed as a boon by the Roman Catholic
clergy of Ireland. He concurred with his Noble Friend
near him in the sentiments he expressed with regard to
Maynootli. The grant they made to Maynooth was a
disgrace to this country, and he hoped the Government
would do everything they could to remove it.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE expressed himself
highly gratified at the Bill.
After a few words from Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the
'Bill was read a second time.
LAW OF LIBEL BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL gave notice that, (*Tuesday next,
he would-more the third reading of the Law of Libel
Bill.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE.

Mr. LdNITON presented a petition from Yorkshire
in favour of protection to agriculture.
Mr. W. PATTEN presented petitions from Lanca-
shire to the same effect.

An Hos. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches pre-
sented petitions from every parish in Huntingdon against
any alteration in the corn-law!. •
Mr. MILES presented petitions from Somersetshire
in favour or protection to agriculture.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a number of petitions
from Lincolnshire to the same effect. _ _

Lord MARSIIANI presented similar petitions frcim
Kent.

Lord GIIDISTONE also presented petitions from
Hertford. • _ _ . _

Sir J. TROLLOPE presented petitions from Northum-
berland, Rutland, and Huntingdon, in favour of agricul-
tural protection.
Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition, signed by agri-
cultural labourers of Dorsetshire; praying for the re-
moval of all restrictive duties on articles of food.

Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN presented petitions from
Northumberland, Iluntingdon, Cambridge, and other
places, in favour of agricultural protection.
Mt. BECK TT. presented similar petitions.
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented similar petitions from
Winchester and its neighbourhood.
Mr. R. PALMER presented petitions to the same
effect from Berkshire.

. Lord v GRANVILLE SOMERSET presented 140
petitions from the county of Monmouth, in favour of
protection to-agriculture.
Lord STANLEY presented several petitions to the
same effect from North. Lancashire, signed by sixteen
or seventeen thousand persons. The Noble Lord was
proceeding to explain to the House the manner in which
the petition had been got up, when
Mr. WAKLEY rose 'to order. It was against the
rules of the House to speak on the merits of a petition
on its presentation. He had often tried it himself, and
he had always been met by being told that he could not
make any statement on the presentation of a petition.
Lord STANLEY conceived that his experience in
these matters was quite as great as the Hon. Member's.
The.rule of the House was, that a Member could not
discsss the merits of a petition, but must confine himself
strictly to a statement of the object of the petition, and,
on the present occasion, he was merely stating the par-
ties fro,n whom the petition proceeded. The petition
was in favour of agricultural protection, and came from
landowners and others in Lancashire. Amongst them
were 23, out of 47, of the principal manufacturers of
Preston, employing 1,588 horse power out of 3,522.
It was also signed by 25 of the principal employers of
hand-loom weavers in Blackburn and its neighbourhood.
—(Cheers )
Mr. WANLEY,,wished to ask the Noble Lord if
that statement were embodied in the petition?
Lord STANLEY said it was not, but he held in his
hand a list of the parties to whom he had referred,
which the Hon. Gentleman might see if he wished.
Mr. WAKLEY.
_wished to ask the Speaker if the
Noble Lord had been in order in the statement he had
made ?
The SPEAKER conceived the Noble Lord to be in
order. If he had not done so, he should have felt it his
daty to have interrupted him.
Mr. WILSON PATTEN said he had been applied to
by the petitioners to have the statement, which the
Noble Lord had made, presented to the House.
Mr. WAKLEY said I►o should on a future occasion
take advanti;ge of the opinion which had been expressed
by the Speaker.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. WAKLEY said as this had been laid down from
the chair to be strictly in order, he should take care not
to fi-n,,et it on a future oceasion.—(hear, hear.)Sir
.E\izs./17.RcEloTE presented 57 petitions from the
County of Itetland, in favour of agricultural protection.
Lord presented several petitions to the
same effect.

FREE LABOUR.
Mr. II urr gave notice that on this day fortnight he
should bring before the House the subject of the immi-
gration of free negroos into the West Indies.
TIIE W Alt IN MOROCCO.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to ask the Right
llon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) a question, of which
he had given notice, with,respect to ,the state of the re-
lations between France and Morocco. He- bad delayed
it until communications should have been received. It
appeared that re-infiweements had lately been. sent
by the French Government to the frontier of
Algiers, and it was said that the whole force
was to amount to' no less than 100,000, or nearly equal
to the whole force of this great empire. 'There had
lately been actual hostilities on the frontier of Algiers
and Morocco. Whether they were provoked by the
Morocco chiefs, as stated in the French newspapers, or
whether the Emperor of Morocco had any other ac-
count to give of the origin of those hostilities, they.
were not informed. Ally question which should lead
to hostilities, -saiitilinws to war- and invasion on tha