The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-05 00:00:00

matter in the hands of the Government of the country, and he
would not express the smallest doubt that in all their proceed-
ings they would duly consult the interests of the country and
the honour of the Crown, whose Ministers they were. —(Loud
and prolonged cheering from both sides of the House. )
Sir R. PEEL could not be surprised, and he would not say
that he regretted the Noble Lord had taken this opportunity of
delivering the sentiments which he had expressed.—( Hear,
hear.) He thought the Noble Lord had partly defined the
limits within which it was proper to introduce such a subject
in a popularassembly. When a negotiation was pending affect-
ing the most important interests of two great countries, he
thought the Noble Lord had justly defined the rule within whit h
a Member of Parliament might exerei=e his discretion.—( Hear,
hear.) Popular feeling ought not to be excited during a
negotiation unless there was some grave and potent
reason for so doing. He did not think that the
Noble Lord was responsible for any consequences
which might follow from the course he had taken.
—( Hear, hear.) By the latest intelligence from the
United States, it appeared that the matter had been withdrawn
from the cognizance of those authorities to whom the negotia-
tion had been entrusted, and an appeal had been made for the
settlement of the question to others than those to whom its set-

Clement properly belonged. As Minister, he must necessarily
speak with reserve, and could not exercise the freedom which
an individual Member of Parliament was warranted in doing.
He could not think it cons'stent with Isis duty to follow the
Noble Lord into the whole discussion, or discuss the grounds
upon which the United States founded their claim, but he
would correct an error into which the Noble Lord fell in his
statement respecting the boundary line. There was a negotia-
tion in 1842, that to which the Noble Lord had alluded ; there
was another negotiation, of which the Noble Lord did not
seem to be aware, in 1827, at which, in addition
to the territory mention'd by the Noble Lord, the strait called
Del Fuego, that easy access should be given to American
vessels its the adjacent harbour, and that the little Peninsula
north of the river Columbia, should be ceded to America.
That was the last proposal. In 1818 the boundary line was
defined and two subsequent treaties in convention were made,
but the last in 1827, although nominally for ten years, included
a proviso, that it would contnue in force until either of the
parties thought fit to give a year's notice of withdrawal from
the terms of the treaty, and at the expiration of that year the
Parties to resume their original rights. The Right Hon

Baronet thou quoted from Pri;ident Tyler's message,-3d Dec.
1841, showing that he distinctly recognised the negotiations
then in progress between the two co entries respecting the
disputed territory, and hoped ;for a successful termination of
them. So late even as the 19th of February, 1-45, when a
motion was made in Congress for the production of certain
papers connected with the boundary qiiestion, President
Tyler said that considerable progress had been made in
the negotiations, that they were carried on in an
amicable spirit, and that the negotiations would
be brought to a close in a short period.—( Hear,
hear.) On the 4th of March, 1845, the President
made the address which had caused the observations which fell
from the Noble Lord opposite. Since that address had been
blade, no communication had arrived from the British Ambas-
sador. At the time of his sending the address he had not had
time to make any comment upon it. No d plomatic commu-
nication bad as yet taken place with the Government there up
to the date of the last accounts. M.. Pakenham would be
inclined, he had no doubt, to continue the same arrangements
which he had carried on with the last Government. All they
knew of the subject was that which was contained in that ad-
dress. He considered it his duty, notwithstanding the lan-
guage of the President, to state that it was his opinion that
there would be a favourable result to these differences. In case
there should be an unfavourable issue—by that he meant on'y
that if the proposals they made to reconcile these differences
should be rejected, and no counter-proposals made to the same
effect— that he would not object on the part of the Govern-
ment to lay on the table of the House all the com-
munications which had taken place ; he trusted, how-
ever, that that would not be necessary ; he still hoped
that an amicable adjustment of the claims of both countries
might be made, notwithstanding the allusions contained in the
address. He would express his deep regret that such refer-
ences to the contingencies of the case should be made by the
chief executive officer of the United States, contrary to all
usage, while such a negotiation was pending. Such a refer-
ence was not likely to lead to that issue which every friend to
the amicable relation of both countries would desire. As

the subject had been brought under the notice of the
House, he felt it to be his duty on the part of her
Majestyls Government to state in language most temperate, but
at the same time most determined, that they considered their
rights, in respect to the territory of Oregon, were clear and
unquestionable ; that they trusted still to effect an amicable ad-
justment of their claims ; but if, having exhausted every effort

. , , .
to effect that, their rights were invaded, that they were re-
solved and prepared to maintain them.—(Loud cheers.) He
hoped that the declaration which he had made would not
lead any of the Hon. Members to enter into a discussion
that might prevent the result which they all should desire.
He wished that the Members of the House would not pro-
ceed with the discussion, but leave the matter in the position
in which it now stood.

Lord J. RUSSELL, after making an explanation concern-
ing the proposal which was made to Mr. Canning, said that
he carefully abstained from making any motion, and, after
what the Right Hon. Baronet had said, he would not snake
any motion of the kind until the Government were prepared

to answer St.
Lord PALMERSTON agreed with the Right Honourable
Baronet that it was not expedient for Hon. Members is press
this matter any farther. He would take the opportunity of
looking to quotations made by a Noble Lord in another place.
He found that those quotations were taken from dispatches
which be himself had laid upon the table of the House. He
should only say that upon the rointa which had been alluded to,
or with regard to the objections which might be made with re-
spect to the arguments made by him, and which the Nob'e
Lord called the Ashburton recapitulation, nothing that had
been said in that other place could be taken as an answer to
those arguments which two years 2g* he took the liberty of
making to this House. Objection had been taken to the manner
in which be had stated his views OR this subject. He trusted
that on every occasion in which it was his duty to state his
opinions on this subject, he had always abstained as much as he
could from any per,onal attack upon anybody.
The subject then dropved.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

Mr. WAKIIEY (on the Speaker leaving the Chair for
going into a Committee of Supply) said that,, as there had
been a misun4erstanding with reference to the bringing on of
his motion—his Hon. and Gallant Colleague was not in his
place—he would, if possible, postpone his motion ; but as
there weuld not he a Committee of Supply on Monday even-
ing, he should now go on with his motion. If the Right Hon.
Baronet the secretary for the Home Depariment would pro-
duce the warrant moved for, he would be saved the trouble of
bringing the matter under the discussion of the House ; but
as he refesed to consent to do so, he should take the sense of

the House upon it. The Hcn. Gentleman then moved for a
copy of any warrant or warrants sent to the Postmaster-
General by any Secretary of State, directing the detaining or
opening of any letter or letters to, or written by, Thomas
Slingsby Duncombe, Esq. It would be recollected that, im-
mediately before Easter, he presented petitions to the House
from a number of his constituents, praying that the House
would institute an inquiry which would satisfy the public at
large as to the necessity of opening Mr. Dur combos letters,
that they might know whether be was any longer entitled to
represent them. That was the object of his motion. It was
considered in that borough that he had been subjected to un-
just treatment by her Majesty's Government. It would be
harassing to go over the details of the matter, but it seemed
most extraordinary that his Hon. Colleague, who first brought
the subject before the House in reference to Mr. Mazzini's
letters, that he who charged the Government in that transac-
tion should have his own letters opened. He (Mr. Duncombe)
made every effort in his power to prevent the effect of those
aspersions which might be cast upon him, for he
brought it under the consideration of the House frequently,
and offered to maintain his charge at the bar of the House, and
called for an examination of the parties concerned at the bar
of the House. The motion he now made, he believed, would
share the same fate as that of his Hon. colleague, but it would
only convince him of the unjust treatment which he had re.
ceived. If his letters were opened, why not state the circum-
stances under which it was done, in the same way as the facts
relative to the opening of Mr. Mazzini's letters were laidbefore
the Sousa ? The Right Hon. Gentleman stated to the House
from the communication he received his information with
reference to Mr. Mazzini. He stated that the warrant
issued by him was dated the ist of March, 1844, and that
he had received a dispatch, stating that the Belgians had re•
fused to allow Mr. Mazzini into their country in consequence
of disturbances he had raised in France, and said that if any
fault was committed it was his fault. Nothing could be more
satisfactory than the manner in which he showed that he acted
upon the information which he believed to be true. But. what
was the course pursued by them with respect to his Hon.
Colleague? He (Mr. Duncombe) said that his correspondence
had been violated in the Post-office, but they got no acknow-
ledgement from the Government as to whether they were opened
or not, and in that refusal the Government were supported by
a majority of the House. Had not his Hon. Friend a right to
know who assailed his character at the Home- office? He
knew not by whom his character had been misrepresented,
and he had a right to urge that he had been ill-used by her
Majesty's Government. His constituents did not know what
to believe, they had good reason to believe that he had acted as
a good representative, but still when they had found that her
Majesty's Government had considered it to be their duty to
open his letters at the Post-office, they had a right to know
under what circumstances that had been done. if the facts
are stated in one case, why are they not made known in the
other? The responsibility rests on the majority of this House,
and if they decide, no matter how unjustly or inconsistently,
there is no appeal from that decision. If this warrant were
issued and a prosecution instituted in any of the courts of law
against one of the servants of ifs Post-office for having,
opened the letters of hie Hon. Colleague, that warrant
should be produced on the trial, and the absence of it would
defeat the prosecution, or submit the party to the consequences
of a conviction for a mist!, meariour ; and what means of escape
would they have under the statutes of Anne, or the other Acts,
without the production of the warrant, for such a course of
procedure ? But he saw clearly that the Govert meet, so far
from mee log this question in a fair and open manner, were
fencing with it in a fashion not a all creditable. Would it not
be more creditable on their part, either to produce the win rant
at once, or declare frankly that no such warrant existed ?
( Hear, hear.) But the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir J.
Graham), so far from adopting either of these courses,
declines both, and relies eatirely on his tyrannical majority.
It was not upon an adherence to law, but upon a reliance on
force that the Right Hon. Bt onet fall back upon. It was not
reason, it was not justice. How, he would ask, would any
Member of the Government like to be so treated ? The
answer was obvious. A Noble Lord opposite had said that his
(Mr. Wakley's) lion. `,:olleague was a degraded person.—
( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) Well, then, could
it be believed that his Hon. Colleague's letters had been
opened without some such alleged cause ?—( Hear, bear.)
But notwithstanding every argument that his Hon. Colleague
had urged, with the view to elicit an answer, the
Only one ever vouchsafed was, "We are determined not
to say whether there was any' warrant for opening the letters
or not."—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Wakley) begged again to
repeat that great dissatisfaction existed out of doers upon this
subject, and the feelings of his constituents in particular were
most intense, for they could not understand why his Hon. Col-
league, who had discharged his Parliamentary duties with so
much ability and zeal, should be so treated by a majority of that
House. The question then narrowed itself into this. Was this
warrant to be produced, or was it not? He feared that the
latter would he the answer; for it appeared to him that the
Government were as obdurate now as they were in the begin-
ning of this discussion. Considering the manner in which his
Hon. colleague had dealt with this question from the com-
mencement, the wound which his feelings had endured, the
bold tone in which he bad attern,,ted to vindicate himself, and
the whole character of this transaction, he (Mr. Wakley) felt
bnind to say that but one feeling could exist in the public
mind, if this motion should be refused, and that was, that great
injustice had been done. lie knew there would be a majority
against him, but that did not alter the tone of the public mind.
and particularly of the constituency of Finsbury, who felt that
their representative had been aggrieved, and was entitled to re.
dress.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said that his Hon. Col-
league bad been engaged in illegal practices, which bad induced
the Government to take this step in his regard ; if so, would it
not be but fair to let him know who his calumniatorswere. The
Hon. Member concluded by proposing his resolution.
Mr. WILLIAMS said be rose to second the proposition of
his on. Friend, and in doing so he begged to assure the
li
House that he would occupy it but for a very few minutes.
Lie did think that this was a motion to which po otOectia