The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-21 00:00:00

THE SilN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 21, 1845.

case of some sporting Lords.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) It was time, therefore, it should be known
what was the law, and in whose hands the execution of
it reposed.--(llear, hear.) He supported the motion.
Sir R. INGLIS said that although the Speaker had.
with his usual attention, endeavoured to call upon the
Members of each side in a fair alternation, his quick and
iimpartial eye had not been able to discover whether the
gentleman who rose belonged to the Opposition or to the
supporters of the Government. Ile had called upon the
names of gentlemen sitting behind the Secretary of
State, and he found that they supported the motion.—
( Laughter.) A Gentleman on the side of the Opposi-
tion ( aught the Speaker's eye, and the House was sur-
prised to find him an advocate of the Right Hon. Baronet.
lie had heard the eloquent speech of his Hon. Friend the
Member for Pontefract, and he could not help asking
him (Mr. Milnes) whether he called that backing his
friends ?—(Laughter.) (Mr. Milnes sat immediately
at the back of Sir James Graham.) The best
speech :in favour of the Ministry, and against
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, was that of the Hon.
Member for Sheffield, in whose speech, except the be-
ginning and the end, he entir. ly concurred.—(Great
laughter.) He could agree with his Right Hon. Friend
the Member for Edinburgh, that a Member of Parlia-
ment was in a position entitling him to exclusion from
this privilege of the Secretary of State, which was not
inertly a statutable right, but a common-law right, con-
firmed by statute; yet the letters that were opened were
not those of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself,
but letters addressed to him by others, for whose
propriety and regard for the law the Hon. Member could
not answer. Would any one contend that, with such an
authority of statute laws as had been shown in this case,
and the practice of 140 years, the law had been violated?
He thought it would almost be absurd to retry the
d.cison of the Committee by a public tribunal, after the
House had deliberately determined that the Committee
should be secret, and the Honourable Member for
Finsbury, who did not snake any objection to
the constitution of the former Committee, had
no locus sfandi in asking fur another inquiry.
If they wore to adopt the lion. Member's motion, it
would amount to an impeachment of the late Secret
Committee. It would at the same time involve the

House in a perpetual reiteration of the same inquiry ;
and as no doubt the same results would be produced, it
would only tend to keep alive the public excitement on
this case. There was no country in Europe where the
sanctity of letters was so much studied as in England.
In exemplification of this, an Hon. Member had given
them several illustrations, occurring since the reign of
Henry 11. He believed, however, that instances of a more
recent date might be given, and in support of this state-
ment he would take leave to relate a story which would
probably be familiar to many Hon. Members, and he
should therefore content himself by only giving the out-
lines, which would bring it to the minds of those Hon.
Members who had pre% iously heard it.—(Hear, hear.)
A short time ago one of our Secretaries of State for
Foreign Affairs desired a British Minister at a certain
port to insist upon certain terms, but intimating that the
Minister was not to press them at the risk of incurring
a war between the two Powers. The Secretary of State .
received an answer by ordinary post, in which the Mi-
nister stated that he had made the communication to the
Foreign Power, intimating that, unless he received a
favourable answer within four-and-twenty hours he
would demand his passport. The British Minister
knew that his letter would be opened at the foreign post-
office, and, in a subsequent communication, he intimated
this to his Government. The result was that in less than
six hours after the communication had been dispatched
a messenger reached the British Minister consenting to
the required concessions.—(Laughter.) He repeated,
then, the sanctity of the Post office was no where so
much observable as in England. He admitted that Eng-
land ouuht to be the refuge of foreigners ; but he main-
tained that they were only entitled to protection so long
as they did not convert this oasis into a volcano upon
other countries.—(Laughter.) Did any honest man
complain that his letters had been opened ?—(Hear.)
An HoN. MEMBER—Yes ; the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.
Sir R. H. INGLIS excepted the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, because he did not admit that his let-
ters had been opened. At all events, if they
had been opened there wag no evidence to prove
it.—(Hear.) Letters addressed to him might have been
opened, for which he was not responsible, but he did not
believe that any letter written by the Hon. Member had
been violated. It might be the misfortune of the Hon.
Member, as was the case with others, to have some Con-
stituents in whom they themselves had no confidence.
And some of these constituents might think proper to
address him in a manner which all must deprecate.—
(Hear, hear.) Any man who held the report of the Se-
lect Committee in his hand must be satisfied that it
sufficiently exculpated the Government in respect to
the use they had made of this power. The law and the
constitution of the country permitted them to exercise
the power in particular instances, and he thought there
was sufficient justification for their doing so in the
particular case of Mazzini. It was, therefore, not
necessary for him to support the motion of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. Nor could he consent to
the amendment of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, for
phreivcioluegldeaegxreeme
pwtietdh
athneHp(rmopo .
sisietmiobne-trht a Parliamentarymanyehargeef
particular misconduct. He was therefore not prepared
to vote either for the motion of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, or for the amendment which proposed to ex-
empt Members of Parliament, and particularly the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, from the operation of the powerof
opening letters now in the hands of the Government.
Mr. BERNAL thought that the Parliamentary pri-
vilege possessed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was
violated. That privilege was based upon a resolution in
1745, and sanctioned by Sir H. Walpole and Mr. Pelham.
That resolution decided that it was a breach of the pri-
vileges of Parliament if the letters of any Member of
that House were detained or opened without the sanc-
tion of the Secretary of State. If, therefore, the warrant
had not been signed by the Right Hon:Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department, the question
of privilege had nothing to do with the question before
the House. The character and respectability of a Mem-
ber of that House was of great importance, not only to
himself but the constituents he represented, and hence he
thought it was necessary that an inquiry should be made
to vindicate the Hon. Member for Finsbury in the eyes
of the British public. His letters had been opened, and it
was supposed that it was justified by the supposition
that he was holding intercourse with persons not only
suspected, but who were contaminated by their previous
associations. This was the only justification for the
opening of an Honourable Member's letters, and the con-
stituency of the Hon. Gentleman might take a technical
objection to his sitting in that House. They might
urge that a man that would lend himself to seditious and
treasonable designs was not fit fer a seat in that House.
No man, therefore, could be prepared to justify the
course that had been pursued by the Government to-
wards the Hon. Gentleman, and he was, therefore, en-
titled to call for an inquiry. If the warrant for opening
the Hoe. Member's letters had not been signed by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home De-
partment, it would be competent for the Hon. Member
for Finsbury to summon the Post-office authorities to the
bar of the [louse, and, of course, be dealt with according
to the nature and extent of the offence. As to the law of
the case, they were not in a position to discuss that,
hereafter a motion would be made upon that point. He
did not know whether the Hou,e of Commons would
sanction the statute of Anne, or whether they would

consider the state of public opinion in 1845, as
similar to that of 1745. It was a large question,
and he hoped it would be fully discussed at
a future period. He was not prepared to say that the
Secret Committee had neglected to perform their duty.
On the contrary, he felt disposed to think that they had
fully achieved the object for which they were appointed.
At the same time, however, he could not help thinking
that they might have communicated to the House whe-
ther the Government had exercised due discretion in
putting this power into force. The report did not prove
whether the Ministers had exceeded the limits of their
power or not. If, however, the Right lion. Baronet had
been guilty of an illegal act, there was a sufficient re-
medy in a Court of common law ; and the House of
Commons, therefore, was not the place to seek redress.
lie hoped, therefore, that somebody would move an
amendment to limit the inquiry to the case of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and he believed the Hon. Mem-
ber had a. right to demand that inquiry. He did not
mean to say that the Right Hon. Baronet the first Lord
of the Treasury had accused the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury of being concerned in the treasonable proceedings
of 1842 ; but certainly the language which he held last
Tuesday, and the expressions which fell from the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bate, were sufficient to justify his
proposition, that the Hon. Member for Finsbury had a
right to demand an inquiry. He regretted that the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bute was not in his
place, for he always objected to saying anything behind
a man's back. But still he could not avoid remarking
that, the Hon. and Learned Member had been very
intemperate in the language used the previous evening.
The Hon. and Learned Member referred to a time when
conspiracy was rife, and schemes of murder being con-
cocted. He mixed the Hon. Member's name up with
these statements, and th• only conclusion that could be
come to, was, that the Secretary of State suspected that
he Honourable Member for Finsbury was con-
cerned in these treasonable designs.—(Hear, hear.)
For the sake of his own tranquillity and peace of mind,
as a friend to the Right lion. Gentleman himself, he
would recommend him not to stifle the investigation, or
to smother the charge which had been again and again
reiterated by the Hon. Member for Finsbury. If he did
so, what would be the effect produced out of doors ?
(Heer, hear.) The public mind must act upon that
House,—the tome and character of the House must, in
fact, depend on the respect paid to it out of doors. Were
he a political supporter of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
should still say that the most insidious advice which
could be poured into his ear, the most dangerous counsel
which he could possibly follow, would be to refuse the
investigation now sought by the lion. Member for Fins-
hear.) He would not, indeed, vote for
the actual motion of that Hon. Member. In that respect
the lion. Member for Finsbury and himself' had agreed
to follow the same course. What they were pre-
pared to propose was a corn.:Jittee simply to
inquire whether the correspondence of the llonour-
able Member had been detained and opened, and, if so,
under e hat authority.—(llear, hear.) He would not
enter into an examination of the composition of the Com-
mittee, nor would he enter into the question of national
faith, or of the discretion which ought to be observed
by the Government of a free, liberal, and enlightened
country. His efforts would be limited to the obtaining
full and sufficient justice for the lion. Member who al-
leged himself to be aggrieved. He called upon that
Hon. Member himself not to relax in his efforts ; and if
he were finally defeated in his attempts to secure inves-
tigation, he would recommend him to summon to the bar
of that House those persons belonging to the Post-offir.,e
who were charged with the offence of opening his let-
ters.—(Hear, hear.)
Downiwicx paid the Hon. Member who had

; just sat down had made, as usual, a lucid and clear state-
ment of his argument, but confessed that he could not
suppert the motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
and his able speech must in fact be considered as having
be en defile red in some conjectural motion not yet in
existence. In dealing with this question he (Mr. Borth-
wick) was not influenced by any Government connexion,
as lie had never been encumbered by any Government
hele.—( Laughter.) There were, he believed, faults on
both sides.
" Intra muros peccatur et extra."
It appeared that the practice now complained of had ex-
isted in its present state from the earliest period. He
was asked to give a vote which would have the effect,
on the one hand, of fixing on the Committee a charge of
evasiveness, and on the other of fixing upon the Right
lion. Gentleman a charge which he thought even the
Hon. Member for Finsbury must be sorry that he had
made and unwilling to repeat. In his conscience he
(Mr. Borthwick) believed that the Government had
never opened the Hon. Member's letters; and if they had
done so, it would be easy to bring the matter to an issue
by calling before the House the officers of the Post-
office. Such being the views which he entertained on
the subject, he must be excused from voting for the
motion before the House.
Mr. C. BULLER then rose and addressed the House
as follows :—Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the most
superfluous sentence I ever heard in this House—and
that is saying a great deal—(Laughter)—was the closing
sentence of the speech of my lion. Friend the Member
for Weymouth, which was a vehement exhortation to
my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury not to relax
in his efforts on this subject. Because I think we may
gather from experience that he is not likely to relax
when he has a particular object in view, such as that
which my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury now
entertains. I must confess that perhaps I may break in
a little on the gravity of this debate, when I declare
that after the fullest consideration I could give this sub-
ject, I can hardly look very gravely on the question
which is now presented to the House. That there
are grave questions connected with this matter
there cannot be the slightest doubt. I think that the
House has responded to the feeling of the country.
That the existence of this power in the hands of the
Minister is a matter of grave consideration, no man, I
think, will deny. I will put by that subject for the
present, as we are not met at all to discuss the policy
of the law as it is said at present to exist. On that, Sir,
no man entertains a stronger opinion than I do—that a
power so worthless is inconsistent with the security of
liberty—inconsistent with domestic comfort, and incon-
sistent with national morality.--(Cheers.) I put by that
great question now, as the only question before us is—
whether her Majesty's Government have made out a
case that they are not chargeable with the invention of
a new power—that they have acted according to the pre-
cedent of their predecessors in etercising this power of
opening letters. Admitting that the only, ques-
tion is whether it has been exercised in an
honourable or discreditable manner, I must confess,
Sir, that until yesterday I felt deeply and very
painfully on this subject. I did feel that some in-
put ttion rested on the conduct of her Majesty's Govern-
ment with respect to the use made of the letters which
had been opened, and of the consequences and results
from this conduct of the Post-office ; and I must confess
that the occasion of such conduct I never saw, and I de-
clare to you inperfe ct sincerity that I should have felt just
as much horror at finding it proved against those Gentle-
men with whom I am in the habit of acting. I am glad,
Sir, that the answer of the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet yesterday relieved us from the most pain-
ful part of the suspicion which was excited
against a particular man. Now, the question re-
solved itself into one of opening the letters of
my Honourable Friend the Member for Finsbury ;
and I must say, Sir, that I think it is a question very
well deserving the attention, both of the Hon. Gentleman
who has had his letters opened, and of this House.
Now the Noble Lord, the Chairman of the COmmittee,
was pleased to say that it was a " prurient" curiosity
that would lead one to do this. Now, I am not very
curious—(Laughter)—but I declare that one of the most
justifiable questions that one could ask in the world of
any man suspected of opening one's letters, would be
civilly to say, " Pray, Sir, did you open my letters or
not?"—(Laughter.) I don't thine it an idle question.—
(Continued laughter.) I think the man who wishes
not to have his letters opened, has a right
to have an explanation when he finds those
letters have been opened. I think the public
have a right to know—and I think the public are deeply
interested in this matter. The secrecy of the correspon-
dence of Members of Parliament is of great importance
—first, they are the representatives of the people (and
as we represent the people, our correspondence may
turn on matters highly important to the public, if you do
not guard them, and especially guard their privileges ;
there are persons whose confidence and correspondence
might be violated by an unscrupulous Government.) As
respects this House, this is a very important question.
For myself, it does not concern me very much—although
I cannot go so far as the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Oxford, who said, that it did not matter if the Govern-
ment saw all the letters that he wrote, or that were written
to him. I can only say that if my letters
were opened by the Government, and they read them,
they would be doing more !than those to whom they
were addressed had ever been able to do —(Laughter.)
I trust that the House will not look on this as a mis-
taken assumption on my part. At any rate, the question
of opening letters of Members of Parliament is one well
worthy of inquiry by this House. I say that when this
simple question was raised—when the justifiable curiosity
of tne public and the House was excited on this question
—I do think everything would have gone right if the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of .state for the Home
Department had been enabled to give a civil answer to
a plain question.—(Laughter.) The question was asked
whether he had opened the letters of my Honourable
Friend or not ? but the Right Hon Baronet has really a
most morbid passion for unpopularity, • which he takes
the most unjustifiable means to gratify. I thought he
had had enough of this—(Continued laughter)—without
going out of his way, and that he would think that there
was no necessity of courting an unnecessary unpopularity.
But when that question was asked, instead of simply
answering the question, he put himself into an attitude
of offended dignity, and with an air like that of Socrates
to his judges, assumed a tone of injured innocence, and
declared that public duty would not allow him to reveal
secrets which no force could extract from him. I don't
think, Sir, that he is right there. I think we shall get
at the secret, and I think my Hon. Friend the Member
for Finsbury will get some explanation. The Right
Hon. Baronet assumed precisely the same tone and the
same dignity when lie declared his determination on
the grounds of public duty not to make any statement
or answer, and the consequence was, that my Hon.
Friend the Member for Finsbury stuck to it, and
we e.g. the Committee last session, and everything was
explained. I must say that, taking the tone which is
generally taken on this side of the House, that of a
sincere friend to the Government,—(Laughter)—l do
think the Right Hon. Baronet would have spared him-
seif deal of anxiety, and a great deal of trouble,
w,ultdhavesparedthis
House a
great deal of time
and trouble, if he had done at first what I feel perfectly
convin...eil he will be obliged to do in the end. Well,
Lea., I am surprised at the Hon. Member for Tamworth,
b cause I thought he was more sensible in this matter.
I thought he would have taken the matter in dudgeon,
and would have come forward, and said to the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department—
The gentleman has asked a civil question, why do
you not give him an answer?"—(Great laughter.)
But that was not done ; but, in fact, the Right Hon.
Baronet had rather made the matter worse by his speech
of Tuesday night, because he went into a long explanation
as to the difficulty in which the Government were placed
—of the heavy responsibility to which the Government
is subjected—of the dreadful scenes which occurred in
1842, and of the great nee ssity for the Government
using all the power with which they were invested in
such emergencies ; and he read some dreadful passages
from speeches of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
on that occasion. I happen to recollect that debate, but
I do not recollect that to which the Right Honourable
Baronet referred in 1735.—(Laughter.) I do not pro-
fess to do so.—(Renewed laughter.) I recollect, however,
in 1842, when all these dreadful things occurred, that the
Right lion. Baronet used to say—there is a great deal
of exaggeration—there is not so much danger as
might
anticipated, and that we, Members of Parliament,
go home to our grouse shooting, and our other public
duties—(Laughter)—with perfect safety.
He now comes
forward and tells us of these dreadful machinations.
But what necessity there is for referring to that, to
account for the opening of my Hon. Friend's letters, I
do not know. The Right Hon. Gentleman said there was
one dreadful thing—that of little children running little
pins into bits of work.—(Laughter.) That was one
passage which the Right Hon. Baronet quoted. It was
left to be inferred what all the other dreadful machina-
tions were. I cannot conceive what right he had for open-
ing the letters of my Hon. Friend the Member & rFinsbury
in that emergency, unless he could be connected with the
diabolical intention of the little children.—(Laughter.)
Therefore the Right Hon. Baronet's speech really has
made the charge worse, and I really do not think when
he comes soberly to reflect on the matter, that he can help
thinking that he has not much assisted the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in
this matter, and that he has not said anything to justify
his opening my Hon. Friend's letters. The Right Hon.
Gentleman has stated a new difficulty. The Queen was
called in. The evidence given before the Committee
has been given by Privy Councillors who before they
could give that evidence were obliged to go
and ask her Majesty for, leave to give that
evidence. The evidence could not be published
without the Queen's leave. Well, now, what was the
meaning of the Queen's leave ie the case? I take it that
if her Majesty's leave were asked, she would consult
her responsible edvisers, as to whether she might give
her leave or not.—(Cheers.) I take it that when the
Right Hon. Baronet went to her, she would ask his ad-
vice as to what course she should take ; therefore, if
the Right Hon. Baronet's mouth is hermetically sealed,
he would cause her Majesty's to be closed also.—
(Laughter.) Her Majesty would feel that the Right
Hon. Baronet's popularity was one of the great bulwarks
of her throne—(Laughter)—and she would wish him to
withhold env explanation on an act like this.
I therefore think the difficulty about the Queen's name
might be got over, if the Right Hon. Baronet wished it.
I like to bring these things into a practical shape. What
has the Right Hon. Baronet got by his silence on this
question ? Did that clear the character of the Right
Hon. Gentleman in the eyes of the country ? Does
everybody say " Oh, from what has passed in the House
of Commons, it is perfectly clear that Sir James Graham
is not to blame?" Everybody, I think, says exactly the
contrary. The Right Hon. Baronet might have stopped
the whole of what has taken place by saying " I never
did open the letters." I do not think that his being,
night after night, thus attacked on this subject, can be
exceedingly pleasant. He certainly comes off with the
worst of it. I don't wish to hurt his feelings, but I gene •
rally find that he comes off second beat when attacked

my Hon. Friend. He generally brings the Right Hon.
Baronet into the dirt.—(Laughter.) And dirt it is.—
(Cheers.) Now really, as a practical man, I would
suggest that the very best course would be to acknow-
ledge it at once. I must say, that I think some blame
rests with the Committee in this matter. I think the
Committee would have spared u* a good deal of trouble
if they had satisfied our very just curiosity on this sub-
ject, and have given us more evidence. They ought to
have told us less about Edward the Second and the
Commonwealth, and a little more about opening the
letters at the present time. I should be exceedingly
glad, therefore, if this matter could be allowed to end in
the suggestion of my Honourable Friend the Member
for Montrose. I think the evidence ought to
be laid before the House, but, as that has
not been the case, I feel it to be my duty, if no other
motion is proposed, to vote with my Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury ; but if any amendment should be
proposed, such as that which has been suggested, I shall
be happy to support it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT said he did not think that the
manner in which this subject had been brought forward,
nor the tone which had accompanied it, nor the manner
in which that tone had been received, was credit :ble to
the feelings of that House. He was, however, much gra-
tified at the alteration which had taken place in the tone
of the debate that evening. He alluded particularly
to the speech of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, because
that speech was not only the speech of an honourable
man, but of a generous opponent.—(Cheers.) Although
the length to which he went would not meet, perhaps,
the support of the majority of that House, yet he thought
the spirit in which the Hon. Gentleman had addressed
the House, considering the position in which the Right
Hon. Baronet was placed, was creditable to him as an
opponent. The more they got into this debate the more
did the motion appear unworthy. Every Hon. Gentle-
man disagreed with it, and suggested an alteration. But
that which surprised him most was, that the proposed
modification of the motion was even more objectionable
than the motion as it originally stood. It would be re-
collected that the House had unanimously resolved that
the Committee which was appointed last session should
be a secret one. No objection could be taken to the
composition of the Committee, as five out of the
nine gentlemen composing it were political op-
ponents of the Right Honourable Baronet. Nine
gentlemen of high honour were appointed to con-
duct the inquiry, whose verdict was certainly entitled to
the respect of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, and the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, said
that there were no lawyers on the Committee—(feeling,
he supposed, a little professional susceptibility on the
subject)—(Laughter)— who might conduct a searching
investigation, and extract information from the witnesses
by the moral torture of cross-examination. Well, but
there were lawyers on the Lords' Committee, and he did
not hesitate to say, that the report of the Lords' Com-
mittee was a more full acquittal of the Right Hon.
Gentleman than that of the Commons' Committee.—
(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Edinburgh said that lawyers were excluded
by _ that House, and not by the other, and he
said he could not conceive, but the whole object
was to exclude the Honourable Member for
Finsbury from the Committee. But in the other House
the Noble Lord who brought forward the accusation
there had the good taste and sense of decency not to ask
to be an accuser and at the same time a judge.—
(Cheers.) How did the Committee set forth their verdict?
Having all the case before them, having the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), the Noble Lord, and other per-
sons who were Members of previous Governmeats be-
fore them, who held this office, on which the responsibi-
lity in these matters rested, who made full and unre-
served revelations to them, those being confirmed by the
Right lion. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Horne
Department, who stated that he laid before them
every warrant he had ever signed—(Hear)—in-
eluding that (if such existed) of which he could have
no knowledge—of which the House could have no
knowledge—issued for the examination of the corre-
spondence of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and for
this they had only the bare assertion of the Hon. Mem-
ber himself, who came down to that House and asked
for a Committee to prove it—the Committee having the
facts stated by all those witnesses before them, came to
their determination :—The lion. Gentleman had said
that there was a warrant fabricated in the case of
Mazzini. The Hon. Baronet stated, on his honour, that
such was not the fact.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—I never said that it was fabri-
cated.

Mr. S. HERBERT would be sorry to attribute to the
Hon. Member anything he did not say. He understood
the Hon. Gentleman to say so, but perhaps he was mis-
taken. The Right Hon. Baronet had stated that every
warrant he had signed had been submitted to the Com-
mittee—the reasons upon which each had been issued.
The Committee, with those facts, told them—what?
Why, that the power had never been exercised from per-
sonal or party motives—(Cheers)—and that in every
case it was exercised with an earnest desire to maintain
the tranquillity of the country and to promote the ends
of justice.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—Read the report of the Commons'
Committee.

Mr. S. HERBERT—The Commons' Committee re-
ported that there was a difference of opinion with regard
to some cases.—(Opposition cheers.) It was easy to
judge after the fact. The Committee went on to state
that they had no reason to doubt that the Secretary of
State was guided by no other motives than an anxious
desire to preserve the public peace.—(Hear, hear.)
After a full investigation before the Committee,
and after their verdict was pronounced in favour of the
Right Hon. Baronet, it was hard that their verdict was
row sought to be impugned. He did not think the
Hon. Gentleman was desirous of investigating the truth.
—(" Oh, oh," and cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to be animated with a feeling of personal
animosity, and appeared as if he sought condemnation at
all hazards, and not the elucidation of the truth.—(Loud
cheers.) He did not say he came forward as an advo-
cate of the public good, that the exercise of this power
was dangerous—thatit wasincompatible with the liberty
of the subject, and that no political expediency could
counterbalance its disadvantages, and the evils at-
tending its exercise. No. He did not put
question u
e t
o r him
his motion on any such ground, but asked for a Com-
mittee to inquire into what there had been already an
inquiry upon.—(Hear, hear.) What did they want to
know ? Not that the correspondence of private families
should not be revealed. There was no evidence wanted
upon that. No, but an inquiry was asked as to the
conduct of his Right Hon. Friend, who was standing at
a disadvantage—who had his hands tied up, and ex-
posed to interrogatories, which he was bound not to
answer.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Member for Edidbuigh, and the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, in particular said, that a civil question had
been asked, and that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to
reply to it. Why, it seemed to him, that baseness,
meanness, and falseness were insinuated in such lan-
guage.—(Cheers.) If the Right Honourable Baronet
were once to answer such a question, where was it
to stop?—(Hear, hear.) If one was answered, nine others
tmitiog h
sec
eft
re°
et uyp
thenand ask
?—(Hear,the sam
he
eqaur question, t of ni, and,%_as
consideredwhere was
that this power and the odium which attached to it
ought to be done away with, that was a plain and in-
telligible proposition which was easily understood, and
upon it he would give no opinion. 'Most ingenious ar-
gtshadbeenused on both
mightoth sides
beused upon
esof the question,
and m
thenfomargumentation which it
seemed
the
poor
personal
inexhaustible.
question, from
farso
ma
thedifferent
poor
personal case now before the House.—(Cheers.) With
regard to what had fallen from the Noble Lord the
Member for Newark (Lord J. Manners), it seemed to
him (Mr. S. Herbert) that the Noble Lord had misun-
derstood the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the
Government, in supposing that he made it a ques-
tion of confidence or no confidence.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government had disposed of that, when
they consented to send the matter to a Committee.
The Government did not ask for confidence, all they
wanted was fair play.—(Cheers.) After the question of
guilty or not guilty had been put to the Committee, and
after they gave their verdict of not guilty, it was unfair
and ungenerous to rip up the subject anew—(Cheers)--
not for the purpose of bringing public opinion to bear
on the question, as to whether this power should exist
or not, but for the purpose of exciting public odium
against the Right lion. Baronet—(Cheers)—not for
the public advantage, but to gratify some personal spite.
It was a safe opportunity to strike at a man who had
his hands tied—it was a courageous and chivalrous pro-
ceeding!—(Loud cheers.) If they believed the gentle-
men who sat on the Committee—if they believed them
honest men, and that they honestly discharged their
duties, he asked them to stand by there.—(Hear, hear.)
If they did not, then let them appoint another Committee.
But there was no question raised as to the honesty of the
Committee. The whole object was to expose the Right
Hen. Baronet to unpopularity—to have public opinion
inflamed—to ask questions which could not be answered
—to excite public odium against a person who
could not defend himself.—(Cheers.) He was confident
the House would not be a party to such proceedings.—
(Hear, hear.) The House would be ready to discuss the
question as to the expediency or not of retaining or
quashing this power ; but, after the Committee had
given their verdict of not guilty on the question pro-
posed to them, that House, he was sure, would not lend
itself to an invidious—cowardly he was going to say—
but he would say, to an invidious and personal persecu-
tion.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord IIOWICK said he acknowledged, with the
House, that the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down, was an exceedingly powerful and able
one, and proved that he would be a valuable accession to
the Parliament of which he lately became a Member.—
(Hear.) But able as that speech was, he did not think
it ought to irduce the House to pass by altigether, with-
out further inquiry, the subject submitted to their notice.
His Right Hon. Friend the Member fir Edinburgh ex-
pressed his opinion that, though he objected to the mo-
tion as it stood, there was ample ground fur an in-
quiry, limited strictly to the opening of the letters
of his Honourable Friend, the Member for Finsbury.
Throughout the debate so much concurrence had been
expressed on that opinion, not only on that, but on the
other side of the House, that he thought it was expe-
dient that the question should be narrowed to that point;
and therefore it was that he shared in the opinion of
the Right lion. Gentleman, and he should take the
liberty of submitting an amendment to the House, the
object of which would be to narrow the inquiry to that
point. He took this course very much on the grounds
that had been put forward by his Right Hon. Friend.
The motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury, though
designedly or not, inflicted some degree of blame onithe
Committee. Now, for his own part, he must
fcoorntehsasl
that ho found it difficult to find any
blame.
honourably tie Performed the
sense of the word, done its duty, and
with his
task allotted to it by the House. He agreed
Right Hon. 'Friend that there was no necessity to have
and
tstthaat the, Committee h.
f irl— that it had, 'aritsiectestdrimctestt

any further information upon this point. He joined in
condemning the practice, as it had existed for the last
two hundred years, of Secretaries of State opening let-
ters without sufficient cause being shown. lie agreed
with those who asserted that the Secretary of State should
have the power of opening letters where it was supposed
that they related to the safety of the Stare, but he ob-
jected to the practice of resealing letters in order that
the parties should be ignorant that their correspondence
was kno vn to the Governm,nt.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought such a system partook greatly of the character
of treachery and deeeit.—(Hear, hear.) He did not im-
pute those qualities to any particular Government. He
believed that latterly almost every Government had
adopted such a cours.e But let them say what they
would, they would never induce the moral sense of the
country to permit the exercise of a power of
so extensive a description. Whatever advantages
might arise from it they could never compensate for
the stain that was cast upon the country by the adop-
tion of such a course. lie was prepared to condemn
the continuance of this practice, and he hoped that be-
fore the session was brought to a close his lion Friend
the 'Member for Finsbury would follow out the work he
had so well begun, and by resolutions of that House
stigmatise and put an end to that which ought to be got
rid of.—(Hear, hear.) No Act of Parliament was ne-
cessary on the subject. There was nothing in the sta-
tute that recognised the propriety of forging seals or al-
tering postmarks.—(Hear, hear.) There was nothing
in the statute that approved of that, and if a resolution
of that House was passed against it, there would be no
danger of a repetition of that practice. There was a
question, however, that had not been reported upon by
the Committee of last year—a question of serious and
vital importance, and one that required further inquiry.
His Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury distinctly
stated that letters directed to him had been opened at
the Post-office—(Hear, hear)—and his lion. Friend had
also stated that he was prepared to make that assertion
good if the House would only give him an opportunity cf
doing so.—(Hear.) Upon that fact, whether it was true
or not, the Committee of last year had not reported.
Now, that surely was a point that required to be eluci-
dated, and one that ought not to be allowed to rest in
mystery. If it was true that the letters that had been
addressed to his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury
had been opened, in his judgment there had been a
great abuse of official power. and of the resolutions of
the House. Nothing could justify the opening of letters
addressed to his lion. Friend. It had been admitted
by the Right lion. Gentleman opposite, that although
they claimed the power, it was one that ought to be ex
ercised with the greatest reserve and delicacy, and the
use of which was only justified where the safety of the
State was tit stake. Was there anything—was any
lion. Member prepared to state that there was any-
thing—of so serious a nature in the correspondence of
his lion. Friend? The proceedings in many respects of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, both in and out of that
House, were very far from meeting with his
approbation—(Hear, hear)—but he could never
for one moment suppose that he was one who would
countenance insurrection or violence.—(Hear, 'hear.)
But then it was said that it was not letters written by
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, but those that had been
written to him that had been opened. That circum-
stance, in his opinion, made no difference in the circum-
stances of the case, because if those letters wore calcu-
lated to throw light upon treasonable views, her Majesty's
Government must have supposed--knowing what they,
did of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—that imme-
diately upon his receiving them he would have made them
known to her Majesty's Government. If those letters had
been opened the i'acts of that opening cast an imputation
upon his lion. Friend the Member for Finsbury, which
he had a right to have removed.—(Hear, hear.) The
gravity of the case had been greatly enhanced by the
facts that they were the letters of a Member of Parlia-
ment that had been opened. It was said that there was
no breach of privilege in this case, because there was a
warrant. Now, he (Lord Howick) fearlessly asserted
that there was a breach of privilege, even if there was a
warrant, unless the Secretary of State showed sufficient
reason for the issuing of that warrant.—{Hear, hear.) If
there was no necessity for such a warrant, then
there was clearly a breach of privilege—(Hear, hear)—
for in his opinion all parties ought to have the opportu-
nity of bringing their grievances before Members ce. Par-
liament,without subjecting them to the prying eye of the
Secretary of' State.—(Hear, hear.) It was necessary that
Members should have the opportunity of communicating
with others their views of the state of public affairs with-
out control. This was in his opinion as necessary as the
liberty of speech itself—(Hear, hear)—and it was in his
opinion a dangerous doctrine to say that Ministers
should have the power of looking into the
letters with impunity of their political opponents.
Were they to exercise this power in mystery and
secrecy, and to be the judges of when thy were to be
at liberty to look into the letters of their political oppo-
nents ?—(Hear, hear.) If he thought a Committee
necessary, at the beginning of this debate, he thought so
still more since he had heard the speech of the lion.
Member for Bute. The House was not so full now as
it was then, but he would appeal to the Hon. Gentlemen
who heard that speech, whether that Hon. and Learned
Gentleman did not lay down the doctrine, that it was ne-
cessary to look into the letters of Members of Parliament
if they happened to have what was considered dangerous
correspondence. He had laid down this doctrine in a
manner which, if it received the consent of that House,
would be liable to the gravest and most dangerous abuses.
He trusted the House would not open the door to such
great abuses. He thought it very possible, if this rule
were adopted, that any gentleman who called for a
reform of the public institutions, and who might attempt
to excite public opinion against the Government of
the day, might become the object of suspicion to
that Government. He thought he remembered a time
when the letters of the Right Hon. Baronet the Home
Secretary himself, under such a system, might have been
in considerable danger.—(Great cheering and laughter.)
At least, he remembered, in those days when he (Lord
Howick) was much younger than he was at present, and
more eager in politics, that he thought the Right Hon.
Baronet—as, for instance, in his famous speech about
the " birds of prey"—did direct popular feeling, rather
than public reason, against the Government of that day,
more strongly than was either prudent or creditable.—
(Loud cheering and laughter.) He was sure that the
Right Hon. Baronet's present colleague, who was at that time
Secretary of State, would not have exercised that power, bnt
he thought had there been a Minister who would have done so,
in 1830, when the country was getting in'o a serious state of
disturbance, the correspondence of the Right Hon. Baronet
would have been well worth an occasional inspection.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not doubt that in former
years, the supporters of Catholic emancipation and of reform
were considered not less dangerous than those who now sup-
ported the People's Charter. No doubt the men who sup-
ported the measures that had since been adopted with such in-
finite advantage to the country, and now wet with such general
assent—he had no doubt that had those principles then pre-
vailed, at the Post-office their letters would have been opened.
Why this was actually the case at the time of the American
war, when the correspondence of the leaders of the Opposition
in that House was never safe. Let them look at the letters of
Burke, recently published, and they would see frequent re-
ferences by the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord North,
and others, to their having something of im-
portance to communicate, but that knowing the state
of the Post-office they must defer it till they had a safer op-
portunity. And that which had existed might exist again.
He objected to the principle that the letters of Members of
Parliament might be inspected ; and so far from thinking that
the letters of persons who had come under the censure of the
law ought to be opened, he thought the letters of those persons
ought particularly to be protected. He thought those unfor-
tunate persons, after they same out of prison, if they con-
sidered they had been unjustly treated, ought of all others to
have the clearest right to have their letters respected. He
thought her Majesty's Ministers might have been guilty of a
grave error of judgment, and one calling for the serious notice
and reprehension of the House ; but it did not follow, because
he had confidence in them as men of honour, that all future :Mi-
nisters would be the same. It was a constitutional principle
that Parliament ought not to place that extreme confidence in
any men holding the reins of power—they ought not to give
into any hands a power so liable to abuse. Even on the
slightest suspicion of such abuse the interference of Par-
liament was absolutely necessary to the due exercise of a con-
trol over the Executive Government, and ought to be inquired
into in a searching manner. Though he did not wish to make
this subject a subject of attack on those now in office, yet he
must say that it was a subject of inquiry that they ought not to
pass by. They ought in this respect to act on the old and
wise maxim, to take things in time, Red stop the beginnings of
evil ; let them arrest the mischievous principle in the outset;
let them mark their opinion of the subject by appointing a
Committee to inquire into what the facts were. Let them by
that step mark their opinion that the letters of Members of
Parliament ought not thus to be opened. The amendment he
was now about to place in the hands of the Speaker was this :
—" That it having been alleged by an Hon. Member of that
House, in his place, that letters addressed to him have been
detained at the Post-office, and opened before they were de-
livered, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire if the alle-
gation is true, and if so, en what authority, or on what grounds
such detention and such opening at the Post-office of such
letters were sanctioned." The House would observe that in
this amendment he did not assume the truth of the allegation,
nor in any was censure the Committee of last year, and he
hoped and trusted that this amendment would not be objected
to by the House.
Mr. J. WORTLEY explained.
The SPEAKER having put the original question and the
amendment,
Lord SANnON and Mr. D'lsakELl rose together, but there
was a general call from both sides of the House for Mr.
Dlaraeli.
Mr. D'ISRAELI said he rose to second the amendment of
the Noble Lord opposite, because its intention was first
shadowed forth by the Noble Lord below him, and received, he
believed, the sympathy of the House. That amendment con-
siderably narrowed the question which they were now for the
second night debating; but that question had before been nar-
rowed to limits much smaller by the Right Han. Gentleman
who last addressed the House from the Treasury benches. That
Right Hon. Gentleman had narrowed the question to a personal
view between the lion. Member for Finsbury and the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State.,
for
that, indeed, were the real state of the case,
h ha.,..fore
one, should regret ever having interfered with it e. v..,
he was ordy speaking the sentiments of the Hon.;ranstisinLgeatrhneesde
Gentleman the Member for Hull when he was, p
easx litetle inclined
feelings. But if this were true—and 1
to credit it as some other assertions sai•
strous and equally current—it was hi7ahnw"aa.cle,rleitioenqa4laiilYlumst°rna--
tion of a great truth that manysehaisg(t)ornelaatnsphuabdii,celbeeberaetfietds,
have
from slight and personal caour
great principles vindicated.
sometimes been derived,
for eheffield, who addressed
The Honourable Mem er
the House e ,rly .in the evening. had disclaimed all
what he seemed to think ought
intention of touching
not to form any material part of this discussion. He knew not
whether the Hon. Gentleman was right in the position he had
assumed, but what he could not forget was, that her Majesty's
overnment had proved themselves to be of the contrary
comer'
• . by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister him-
self, in his complete and elaborate defence ;—complete, he
meant, so far as it touched upon each division of the subject ;
both in its legal character and personal interest, he had par-
ticularly argued this question on both these grounds.
The Right Honourable Baronet had indeed vindicated
himself, because he had acted in pursuance of a statute.
A fel the Prime Minister had upbraided the House with its
inconsistencies, because it impugned the Government of the
country when they were defended and vindicated by a statute
they themselves had passed. He thought, therefore, that it
was utterly out of the question for them to pass over the