The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, APRIL 9, 1845.

cestershire, complaining of agricultural distress, and
pra)ing for relief.
Mr. 1?- YORKE presented a petition from York
against the grant to Maynooth-
Lord COURTENAY present. d a petition from Totnes
against the union of the sees of St. A:aph and Bangor.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition against the grant
Z(7) bilaynooth.
Cot 'ftel WOOD pres. nted two etitions against the
audit onal grant to Ma3nooth.
Cawaiti PECHELL presented ft petition from a sur-
geon in Brighton, stained Piclo,rdi aglinst the Physic
Itad Surgery Bill. The Hon. and t;allant Member, at
the same time, prey. rated p-titions signed by forty-
seven medical practiti,mers,a d agr. ed to at a p:lblic
n,eti-ag of the profession, held in Brighton, a.;ainst the
Ne':tical lief. rw 131 1.
Mr GROGAN' pr sented s.-vsral petitions from the
inhabitants of Dublin against the proposed increas;ed
tr,nr to the College of Maytio,th.
their J. TYRRELL presented several petitions azainsc
grant to the College Maynooth.
BURIALS IN LARGE TOWNS.
lord MAHON presented a petition from the parish of
-Paddington against the interment within the precincts
of large towns.
SCOTCH BANKING SYSTEM.
d rag Captain GORDON presented a petition from Aber-
-1:4 hto gt'Oy interference with the present system
ki in o and.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on Thursday nPxt, he
'would present a pAition of en extraordinary character
from the LegAative Council of New South Wales,
PraYing to have conceded to that colony the right which
tad been granted to Canada of importing corn into this
country.
ion th
The HON. MEMBER was about to give another notice
e same subj,ct, when -
'until
The SPEAKER decided that he could not do so
after the other notices had been gone through.
THE CONDITION OF THE LABOURING
Lord J. CLASSES.
RUSSELL gave notice that, on this day fort-
Itighta he would bring forward a motion respecting the
condition of the forward
classes in England and Wales.
ATizITI, NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.
r-
"LON By gave notice that, in the Committee
Tapply' he would ask leave of the House to make an
iapshelatriation respecting statemtnts which had been 'pub-
Zealand leonit4 his conduct in connexion with the New
Captain Rotig
Panv*
'tine that took that opportunity of giving no-
'wonld . when the question wa,. brought forward he
"'ore a resolution to the effect that the conduct
osed to the interests and
..(1)! the Directors of the New Zealand Company, was op-
On the policy of this country.
EXCISE DITTY ON SPIRITS.
mutton of Sir R. FERGUSON the following
act was was ordered :—Account a the, produce of the
,forcise duty reccived on spirits in Ireland, during each
the number of
the years ending the sth day of April, 1844 and 1845;
gallons brought to charge, showing
Ina increase or decrease in gallons and in duty. Ac-
count of the number of gallons of spirits brought to
charge in Irelandquarters endin , and the duty paid thereon, in the
4tg the sth day of April, 1844 and 1845,
'the number
the increase or decrease. Account ..f
of gallons of proof spirits (dis
7,42411''g the quantities produced from tat d
41: a mixture of malt and unmalted gram) on
in duty
ht, Was paid for home consumption in Ireland,
quarter of the years ending respectively the sth
41Pril, 1844 and 1845, and in each of the years. An-
13'tint of the number of detcetions and the number of
:_r'"ria prosecuted for offences in Irelanti agai.ast the
'quws for the suppression of illicit diAillation, in each
I:arter of the years ending respectively the sth day of
-Al).(ril, 1844 and 1845, distinguishing those convicted.
cre,
of the number of persons confined in each gaol
press]
for offences against the laws for the sup
ss'on of illicit distillation on the sth day of January,
ILtr sth day of March, and the 6th day of April, 1845
icontinuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 411, of
"."481 On 1844).

oi- OREGON
er( JOHN RUSSELL moved an humble address to
Ma.
ha, Jesty for a copy of the dispatch of Lord Sydeit-
-1.41 to Lord John Russell of the 9th ot August, 1841,
ant, ?ting the territory in dispute between Great Britain
'lnerlea —Ordered.
MR. MAZZ.
-fro Sir JAMES GRAHAM, inINI answer to a question
I,e In
uncombe, w hws not aibe, said that
rif.n'Ets not) able to lay before the House l any further
i
()motion, in reference to the statements made by him
Ittarding Mr. Mazzini.
SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKS.
Sir ROBERT PEEL announced that he would take
at 113 early opportuni,y of stating to the House what the
Iniltlsure was which the Government proposed to intr..-
co relative to banking establishments in Scotland
Ireland. The pressure of other iropor-
littit business was at present very great ; but
'le would in the course of a nrmith, and before the
Period referred to by Hon. Gentlemen who had remarked
bPon this question on former evenings, state the nature
"the measure to the House.—(Hear, hear.)

se of
f tr the purpose then rose,
the inviola-
...Mr. T. DUNCOMBE
a Bill to secure
e.
THE POST-OFFICE.
H
i,°,ving for leave to bring in
`4oty of letters
the system ofGovern
_to
felt that it was a reflection on
reproach
passing through the Pths"ffi.
per
under which we lived, as
for
'our institutions of which we were
welalhasp
In submitting
raoud, that any
Ilitember of that House should be obliged to seek.
th, Inviolability of his correspondence.
or of a
4'4
‘4°lloll to the House, he
el te.si,.ble trotn everything of individual
going to war
wouldnacbe'stain as
it',.--,- • It was with the system he personal much
a s
of the other
*404 a system he felt it his duty twoaaensn_deour to de-
totisV. eCorainittees of this House d 6 Lied been appointed during the
.4,1 that
P(*.t What was the state of the 14w -
on this subject.
mmons had
last session to re-
the
.°l4 the theWase,ornmittee of the House of Copxactly
that the law in 1844 was but they did
!Mlle ashit was in the time of Queen Anne. .
-slot toll them what that law was.
had
the
, gone one step further, and had told them_ .
_d was,
ottlY way the i t •
be explained b . n ention of the law could ,
TheH,use otfhaLtords
of Parlia
9 the fact teat that nwer was fully recognised by Act
ment, beeeht, i
hate
the power of detaining letters. They to ;d their,
_,wo
it did not give the Secretary of
e power appeared to have been exercised from
the earliest t
a; -es. Period and that it heti h
all
corseng to several' Acts of Parliament. That v-as
that the House of Lords said in reference to the matter,
---( en' ex-rcised ac-
admitting that there bad been no law. He would
that the practice bad obtained, from old usage,
; but
and was recognised by those Acts of Parliament b
grant
1-,1, they rsferred to those cases in the Appendix of the
I,teport of the Commons, they would find that there had
been no such proof that letters had been stopped
in the Post office. opened. and then sent foreard
to the parties who ought to hay.- received them ;
there was no evidence that such a system of fraud and
forgeforger had ever been exercised; they were used in
Coof law as &vidence against certain parties. The
ts
was so different on that point that they
din not allow them to ask where was the warrant
%hereby those letters were taken ; it seemed
that they came into the hands of the Government some
way or other, but they would not allow it to be asked
who detained those letters. The first of Vic-
toria increased the power of the former Act of Par-
lament. He had the authority of the highest
Itlen--the highest legal autheriies, for saying
that there was no law for the exercise of that power now
made use of. All that was den. by the Act was to re-
lieve
• the servant of the Post-office freta a misdemeanor
le,. deaining or opeeing any letters. It left the legality
ro-
of Chet warrant totally and entirely untouched, just the same
5 a constable who produces his warrant is exonerated
fr, e.
,1„,-).7, an responsibility as to the legality of that warrant.
The same thieg
giii, might be saii of' the orders that were
thatoutir the If of strangers into the gallery of
Dt,e7,"nse. If a stranger in that
atir-a"nded, he would produce the order as his protec-
trl3Yet 4 gallery were to be
.t was clear that the power of admitting
ath:ingera did not exist in that House. Bat admittingn
letter:ht% Corselet/tient possessed the power of opening
advar,;a.e question the H. 'use had to decide
. wan,
,r, ,
h 3 all
knew the theY had obtained by its exercise.
t•had
been Di dtfficultiesin which the present Govern
which had
been .cralerd,,,; Land tiles, all knew the ill feeling
ther e ---' LI the expesures in that House.w IcAnd.ief
e was ever
W°old ask
after
whether,
the ,i; ' any ratienel and sensihle man
"Y benefit derived
. from this subject, n
E., gad in
a Mosures Which had been made, a man engaged or a
tee;o s"a.ble correspondence would not be an id
Post- send that correspond, nee through the General
1 this
whieh°'nce• He said, therefore, after the exposures
pr,etichad taken Place, that the value or utility of
of ~ ' had been destroyed If this system a as to bet
Th(7.ll' value at all it must be practised
t'Y the vf'1$ n middle course. They must either stand
should- presents
ystem, or abolish it altogether.
k thiys
in
secret.
odie,, theY not expunge from the statute-boo
inxites4P.ower, if such power existed? Such
. a power
11.1 j le no other country. One of the articles of
ethoe.
heAOl, ponstitutien The
the correspsindepct
erst
did noteiglan people. The power of opening le t .
It 64 exist in the United States, nor in Canada.
lelered Tcl exist in France. 44W atlidin: his Place in the French Chamber, that in
Monsieur Guizot had de-
Pen in in fact the corresp ndence of the French
str it
~ was inviolable. Honourable Gentlemen opposite
eft PI, hut that hal been the declaration of the Minister
till,
e6ireign Affairs in Prance. If correspondence in
liobod 4"" ry were violated. there was no rschees hem's*:
nine:, fl that this
di.eia_Y was responsible for it. Sir Robert Walpole had
Power ought only to be exercised in
the Pre ' great internal danger. From that time down to
llerisent day the Power had be,n increasing. It had
kiitil.'.a,ed, not o ly for criminal warrants, but also for
.
tair,,,''' PurPoses. If they confined the ay st.ae to e.nt-
,, it: ZarrantN •
he should not have so great an objection
Niut:
,at, that was clearly imp tssibl-. On a former oc-
4i. °P itn
hart been stated that Lord Sidmouth had is-twd
•ie (iii. —wiler of warTe its for open'n.4* lett• ri. Now
hilt;
r• nUnconibe) had had lately a c.minunit..tion
a hanker in the of London, and he had odd
that , .
.city
taco,ir
ty
t. a el, rk in his service had been guilty of f0r-
+.41.,1 ort, hid absconded. Application W4B made to
1 •Ir
tell o,o'reauth to intereept the letters of the c.ei...
i • Guth
I • - • h ever
Eanect w s eclin,,d doing so, saying that e n
Lilo, . arrants 0
.or opening letters except in cases ef
lSid,,, treasen. An application was then made to L ,rd
""uth fthe - - be
rld s
fir v.._ , Or parties to allowed to See suss a res
,tri%,:tertetters, and Lord &dna uth sail be would s-ed an
~itete
silt the ',ironing. He did so. and ir was to thil
tli,t, he ' That he eonsid. red the Peseedaiee so secred
tiet,,, , Would not be a p trty to allowing the sup, rserip-
tttlits
sr 415 y letters te be see'," Two-thirds of the war-
e,41.1.41 sued within the last ferty years had been criminal
let ate; end,
i 0 point f f t h t*d itself
0 thi e 0 ac ,t e ques ton sole
%oil should the Crown have the power of issuing
1, 4 Warrant
j'ltti'd t , He thought that when the House
teen
- " :he extensien of the. noliee and other instru-
ts ef 11 t't ' •
I',
tiee,t . : e oeecuove. it wt ~tp that there was no
A_ . 41ty for this addition !
of 0 • loiters.
aaa II"
48,_e ,
for . a. power. _ Peeing
a d copiEs of the Warrants that had been

issued. Now he wished at that moment to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
whether the form, r warrants bad been adopted by him
(Sir J. Graham) as the models of those which he him-
self had issued?
Sir J. GR HAM—Not as to the form.
Mr. T. DUNC() VIBE said, it would be very inter-
tatting to him and • t. er-. to have before them copies of
those n.-vv rorms which had been used in their own
ease=.-- (H. ar, and a laugh.) He believed it would be
found that the practice had been of a most demoralising
effect. To pr• ire this, he would r, ad the order of the
po-tmaster general, dismissing servants of the post-oftii e
tOr opening the letters of certain noblemen and yen-
tl,:m• n eonreet d with sporting affaits.—(The Hon.
Gentleman re al the , rder.) Now the opening of letters
by a postm n w s a transportable offence. But the
pos!maate dared not prosecute those men, because they
might ph,:d the example of their superiors as an au- .
thority. If foniul them guilty, it would be with
a recommendation to mercy on account of the example
set them (Hear, hear.) The dismissal of those men
was occasioned by the unwillingness of the Post-office
and the Home Seemtary to go into a Court of Cri-
minal law, with an avowal of their own acts.--(Hear,
hear.) There were Members of the Committee of In-
quiry now in Oe House, and he wi bed to take the op•
portunuy of reminding them of their own re-
port ; in which they expressed some regret that
they could not go into an explanation of • all
the circumstances connected with those transactions.

' Now what did the Commito e mean by that ? Did they
' picture to themselves a Secretary of State for the Home
Departmeht sitting in his office in a state of alarm
(having read, perhaps, the Morning Herald. the Minis-
terial organ), with respect to some treasonable conspi-
racy, or some sedition, which he learned from a letter
brought from some person in the Post-office, but which,
after all, might turn out to be a conspiracy got up by
some Conservative Operative Society, or a mere Chartist
meeting. The Right Hon. Gentleman having found out
the extent of the conspiracy might put his letter and the
Morning thrall in the fire. Another reason given for
maintainine this power was this—that if you abolish it,
the Post-office, this great Government establishment.
would be made the vehicle of treasonable or seditious
practices. That was the only argument for retaining
this power which had any plausibility ; but upon exa•
mination he thought it would be found to possess more
sentiment than common sense. If this argument were
good as regarded the Post-office, it would be equally ap-
plicable to every railwar, omnibus - driver, or
even cab-driver in the kingdom.—(Hear, hear.)
Was it not better to use the power which the law at
present gave of using a search wa-rant for the opening
of letters in the Post-office, if they were supposed to
contain treason-ble matter, than to open them privately?
That would he a less dishonourable proceeding and less
offensive to the individual. He did net see how the
power which was lately exercised could be of any value
after the exposures that were made. He did not think
that there was much fear of treason new that they had
policemen in every corner. They had their county
rural police, their borough police. What could they
want more. But they had more, if they knew how to
use it properl'—a loyal and affectionate people, who, if
they w ere well treated, would be the best safeguard of
the Crown, and the tranquillity of the country. lie
would ask the House to allow him to bring in a Bill,
and let there be no mistake on the suteect. He te-ked
for leave to bring in a Bill for the unconditional repeal
of this power. He was satisfied that no middle course
could be adopted. This system of opening tetters—this
system of fraud and of forgery must either continue or
cease. He ',mild be no party to any other
course—be would not be made a fool of by bringing
in a Bill, supposing leave were granted him to do so, and
then having that Bil' frittered away or strangled in some
of the subseq tent stages. He would have a clear and
decided vote of the House, whether the power was to
continue or cease. He was not aware what was the in.
tention of the Government en the subject. but he hoped
he would h ar the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of
State tor the Home Department rise in his place and de-
clare t' at this was a p.i•ver riot enly odious for a Minis-
ter to exorcise, hut repugnan to the feelings of the people
of this country—that he would take the matter out of
hi- (Mr. aincornb.'s) hands. and endeavour to expunge
it from the statute-b ielt, on the clear understanding that
any ill-feeling which this -discussion had given rice to,
and any suspicion which had he-n engendered, should he
now and for ever buried in oblivion —(Hear, liter.) And
this was not the only benefit that wi:ald arise from the
abolition of titis odieus power. If any foreign Minister,
or the spy of any foreign despot, came sneaking to their
doors, a British Minister might tell them that this power
no longer existed—that he was ready to give them any
redre-s and protection which the British law enabled him
to do ; but with respect to this species of treachery it
was no longer in his power (and he might at the same
time point to the Act) to open letters for the gratifica-
tion of any foreign power. With these views, he would
ask for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the inviolability
of letters passing through the Post-office.—(Cheers.)
Dr. BOW RING, in seconding .the motion, said that
he wished the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department to state whether or not he in-
tended to make the reparation he promised to Mr.
Mazzini's character, in case he found he had unjustly
aspersed it. He wished to know if the Right Hon: Gen-
tleman was able to produce anything in support of the
criminatory charges he had alleged against Mr. Mazzini.
He would also ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he were
in possession of any ether documents relating to this
matter other than those which he had laid before the
House. It appeared that there had been a communica-
tion from Sir Augustus Foster, stating that the
Austrian Minister had got hold of certain
letters of Mazzini, who had been expelled from
Genoa, showing that Mezzini was the head of the secret
tribunal which had authorised the atrocious murder
which had been committed at Rodez. Now, Sir
Augustus Foster only stated that the Austrian Minister
professed to have got hold of certain documents impli-
cating Mr. Mazzini, and he wished to ask the Right
Hon. Baronet if he had taken any steps to get at the
truth in relation to those documents; and he would
also ask if there was anything against Mr. Mazzini be-
yond the insinuations which had been made on a former
occasion, and if there was any further evidence to be
brought forward in support of the accusation against this
ill-treated,calumniated, and, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
himself had characterised him, unprotected foreigner?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in commencing the obser-
vations which he shoeld feel it to be his duty to addeess
to the House on the present occasion, would commence
by alluding to the questions which bac'. been put to him
by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In the
first place, he would repeat what he had stated to the
House on a former occasion, that until he had been in-
formed of the circumstance in that House on Tuesday
last, he believed he was not aware of the fact that in the
Westminster Review there had appeared a de-
fence of the conduct of Mr. Mazzini. He had
subsecinently stated that it would be his duty to make
ittcynries into the facts of the case, and that if the result
should leave any doubt upon his mind as to the accu-
racy of the statements he had made respecting the
transaction to which he had alluded, he should be happy
to state that fact to the
tHootuaskee. the
lie fihrasit
coeprtpaoirntluynbiteyfore stated to the Hotta on
the first occa-ion that he had endeavoured to inform
himself from the best authority, if any prosecution had
been instituted by Mr. Mazzini against the paper (the
Monitm,) e hich had first brought forward the accusa-
tion, and he had been inf. Tined that no prosecution had
been instituted against that paper. But the same party
from whom he had obtained that information, had taken
no notice whatever to Mtn of the prosecution which. it
was said, had bees instituted against another party—
namely, Monsieur Gisluet, for a republication of the
same statement. Under these circumstances, he
.had
thought it his duty to institute further inquiries. He
bad done so, but he had only heard of these circumstan-
ces on ruesila) last for the first time, and he had as yet
received no further information on the subject. As
soon as he should have received further information, it
would be his duty to state the same to the House—
(Hear, hear)—and, at the same time, to state
the impression left upon . his mind as the result of that
inquiry.—(Cheers.) Painful as that discussion had been
to him on former occasions, he was bound to say that
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, in introducing a great
question of that importance, bad done it in a manner
the most dispassionate that it was possible for any Hon.
Member to do. Si) far from contending; against the po-
sition the Hon. Member had taken, he should say that he
was ready to agree with it. He agreed with him in say-
ing that he did not believe it useful to continue this
power unless secresy be ob-erved. That was the leading
proposition in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, and to
that proposition he was willing to give his entire assent.
tie should state to the House that the Hon. Gentleman
had, in the way he re-presented it, almost seduced him
from his duty, and he should admit that this power had
been viewed with jealousy by the people of this country;
but at the same time he did not think it consistent with
his duty that he should assent to his motion. If he
did not think so, nothing could give him more
delight ; but he was first to consider this
question with reference to the public interest, and to the
public interest alone, and would very shortly venture to
deal with what was the law of the case, and to differ
with the view of the Hon. Gentleman. lie must say
that the power was not first given by the statute of
Anne. Opening a letter was a grt at moral offence on
the part of him who was entrusted with it, but
until this statute passed it was part of the royal prero.
gative tog convey letters, and it was universally known
that the Government, from time to time, whenever grave
suspicion arose, did, without hesitation, open letters con-
fided to its trust, and so far from its being a legal offence,
it was not only not a misdemeanour, but was not even a
ground for a civil action. The statute created the mis-
demeanour, and also created an exception to the Crown.
He perceived that the law was clear on this point. The
effect of the repeal of this statute would be, that the
opening of letters in the Yost-office would no longer be
misdemeanour or an offence prosecuted by law. The
effect of the restriction of the law in this way, giving an
exception oely in favour of the Crown, was, that the se-
curity of correspondence was inviolable. The lion.
Gentleman had stated, and stated very fairlT, what was
the general purport of the report of the Secret Com-
mittee on this subject. The Hon. Member also stated
that the p. opt, o' this country had an immense interest
in the safety of correspondence sent by poet ; he con-
curred in that, and so did the Committee, who, for
that reason, had stated in their report, that with the
exception of such an net being committed by the Secre-
tary of State under warrant, the security of that cor-
respondence should he inviolable. Tee Committee fur-
ther stated in their report, the facts relative to the
issuing of such warrants on former occasions, and the
circumstances under which they had been issued. They
stated the number of warrants that had been issued
during the last twenty. two years, and that that
number did not exceed an average of eight in the year.
In fact the substance of the report. was that this pri
vileg- hsd never h: en abused in
warrants, and that not more than one warrant in a year
during the same period had been issued for criminal

purposes. But was that all ? No ; the report further
stated that great alterations and improvements had been
made in the law in this respect since the time of Lord
Spencer, in 1806, and that all such warrants issued since
then had been carefully preserved. Well, was there no
other change ? He would show that there was, and it
was to this effect, that now no Secretary of State could
Issue a warrant without the presence of three witnesses
—a confidential clerk and two others, and a copy of each
such warrant to be left at the Post-office. In this respect
he begged to assure the House that every warrant issued
by him had been copied, and a copy sent to the Post-
office ; and not only that, but he produced before the
Committee every warrant he had issued, and gave an
account seriatim of each. In all that he had done
in this respect he felt that he would be obliged to
follow precedent, and he did so. In respect to political
warrants, the Act required that the Secretary of State
should give his reasons in writing for issuing them, and
leave a copy of them at the Post-office, so that in fact.
so far as regulations could go. he did not see how regula-
tions could be carried further.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the question as to the expediency of this
power. he would say that if it never had existed, per
haps he would question the expediency of now giving
it; but it having existed, and that, too, from a very early
period, and having undergone many and various modifi-
cations and amendments, from the time of the R volution
down to the present time, and by the highest authority
in the country, he did not see why it should not be
availed of when circumstances required. The House
was now called upon to declare that the Government
should not have the power of interfering with the cor-
respondence of any parties, either foreign or domestic,
no matter how dangerous or treasonable. The Hon.
Gentleman thoughtt, it was too much to leave to the
responsible servants of the Crown to take measures to
discover the designs of parties believed to be engaged
in plots and intrigues dangerous to this country itself,
or menacing to the peace and security of others.
—(Hear.) Every country in Europe, except England,
gave its government the power of preventing the settle-
ment of foreigners within its territory, or of effecting
their expulsion. He (Sir James Graham) did not ask
for the restoration of such favours to the English Go-
vernment. He had always been opposed to those powers
whilst they existed. But he thought it was not too
much to ask, in the absence of such powers, that there
should be continued the means of checking correspon-
dence from this country, which was calculated to 'dis-
turb the peace and endanger the safety of other States,
and to prevent this country being made the focus of
conspiracies against its allies.—(Hear, hear.) He
wished he could arrive at the conclusion at which the
Hon. Gentleman had arrived, that the power so limited
and restricted as it was, could be altogether abandoned
with safety. He did not think so, and especially with
reference to foreign correspondence, there being no
power in the Government to check the arrival of fo-
reignersin this country or to effect their rejection. He
believed that the Hon. Gentleman was correct in stating
that any attempt to modify further the power of the
Crown would prove nugatory, and he, therefore, pre-
ferred the course which the Hon. Gentleman had taken
of bringing in a Bill to take away that power altogether.
To that Bill OR the part of her Majesty's Ministers he
would give a decided opposition.—(llear, hear.)
Lord J. RUS ELL said he quite agreed with the
Right Hon. Gentleman that nothing could have been
more fairly stated than the case of his Hon. Friend.
His Hon. Friend had brought forward the question as a
constitutional one and he had placed his arguments
fairly before the House. Now he (Lord J. :Wesel])
found himself in the situation of being neither able to
agree with his Hon. Friend nor with the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He thought there was great force in one of
the observations made be, his Hon. Friend, namely, that
this power having been much questioned, much discus-
sion having taken plice amongst the public as well as
in that House, the power was no longer of the Fame
utility that it had been at a former time,
and that there was a sort of warning
given to all persons inclined to use the post
as a means of correspondence, not to attempt to carry on
an illegal correspondence by such an agency. Let him,
however, say that, with regard to the law of the question,
his investigatioes, as far as they had proceeded, had led
him to the same conclusion as that which the Right Hon.
Gentleman had come to. It appeared that the Act of
Anne was framed entirely with the view of inflicting
punishment and penalties on clerks and persons engaged
in the Post office, and not either to give a power or take
away a power from the Crown which it formerly pos-
sessed. He had asked several gentlemen connected with
the legal profession what sort of criminal proceeding
could be taken against a person who had agreed to carry
letters and had betrayed his trust, and he could not find
an authority upon which a criminal indictment could be
pref. rred. It seemed to him, then, that it was obvious
that the purpose of the Act of Anne was to give the
public security against their letters being opened
by going through the Post-office ; and at the
same time, while it gave that security, it reserved this
power, which was then considered an established and re-
cognised power. Of course in that case it was not ne-
cessary to confer the power by Act of Parliament—it
was en ly necessary to refer to it. It had been urged
that this power should be used with more formality and
precaution for the liberty of the subject than hitherto.
His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) was prepared to pro-
pose a measure providing that, in all cases of opening
letters, information upon oath should be a necessary
preliminary for the issuing of the warrant. He under-
stood that such was the opinion of a very high autho-
rity, Lord Denman, that there should be a control of
this sort. Considerable discussion had taken place on
the subject, and he was of opinion that some restriction
of this sort should 'be imposed. But his Hon. Friend
the Member for Finsbury went beyond this, and seemed
to consider that letters in the Post-office were en-
titled to a peculiar inviolability, so that even ,
persons carrying on treason would have a
sort of security, by the Bill he would in
troduce. He could not, therefore, vote with the Hon.
Member for the introduction of his Bill. But if a Bill
came from the other House, or was proposed in this,
having the restrictions mentioned, he would give it -his
support. One effect which this Bill would have would
be that of preventing the opening of letters at the in-
stance of any foreign Minister. A letter would not be
opened, in case such a Bill passed, for the alleged pur-
pose of preventing or detecting an insurrection or con-
spiracy in a foreign country. The Bill would remove
any such danger. He thought that was an unjustifiable
use of this power.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had, of course, acted from a sense of public duty.
He did not believe he was swayed by party or corrupt
motives. He did so because he considered it to be use-
ful to the public service ; but in his (Lord J. Russell's)
opinion, the use of this power in order to further the
views of a foreign Minister was unjust. For these
reasons he did not wish to see that power exercised. He
had expressed what his views were, and he could not
give his vote in favour of his Hon. Friend, but he would
be ready to impose such restrictions as be had stated.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that he thought his Hon.
Friend the Member for Finsbury had taken the only
course which it was expedient to take on this question.
It appeared to him that there was no middle course.
Abrogate the practice, and do not attempt by new regu-
lations to set it upon its legs again. He must say he
considered it highly creditable to the British Government
in the abstract that their power or established practice
of opening letters was exercised with so much forbear-
ance. lie did not mean to say that in certain particu-
lar cases there might not have been a want of discretion.
On the contrary, his opinion was that there had been a
want of discretion, but still it was greatly to the credit
of the British Government that for twenty-two years
they had only issued eight warrants a year on the
average, and he thought that must be the opinion of
foreigners themselves. As to the authority on which
this practice rested, it must either depend en pre-
rogative or common-law, or on the statute of
Anne. With regard to prerogative, only some
persons versed in antiquarian lore gave evidence that
such a power was exercised in the time of the Edwards
•ind Henries, and that the power therefore rested on pre-
rogative. But from a certain return moved for by him
(Mr. Warburton) it would appear that the warrants
issued in those times were not the result of prerogative,
but of requests made by the representatives of the
people, requesting the Crown to interfere to prevent.
the extortions of the representatives of the Court of
Rome in this country. There were, indeed, two or three
exceptions in the course of a century, where the war
rants were of a political nature. Of this character were
the warrants which immediately preceded the death of
Edward IL, and the death of Richard 11., but with those
exceptions no warrants de sentinis faciendo of a po-
litical nature were issued. It was the practice in former
times for the Privy Council to torture prisoners confined
for State offences, in order to extract from them evi-
dence with regard to the crime with which they stood
charged. He believed that such was the custom so late
as the reign of Charles the First. Even if they could
show from historical evidence that the Crown exercised
the power of opening letters, he would put it on the
Fame footing as the power of torturing prisoners,, and
he would ask them why they did not put the latter
power into practice at the present day?—(Hear.)
He believed that if this power existed at all it existed
by statute. It was especially noticed in the works of
Bishop Woodley, in some of his communications to the
National Intelligencer, and it was on the occasion of a re-
ference to the proceedings of the Administration of Sir
R. Walpole, and to justify the prosecution of Bishop
Atterbury. In that communication he expressly speaks
of those proceedings having been taken under the recent
Act—the Act of Anne. He expressly said that this
power was exercised under the Act recently passed. It
was therefore clearly no prerogative of the Crown, and
he believed thatif the House were to take the returns of
the Committees they would find that there was no reason
whatever for the retention of this power. Whether they
looked upon the matter as related to the criminal or po-
litical bearing, they would find that no really valuable
information had been obtained, or at least none com-
mensurate with the social evil and immorality which re-
sulted from the use of the power. Whether they acted
on the information furnished by the returns of the Com
mittee on the political or on the criminal warrants, they
would find that the exercise of this power was alike use-
less and unnecessary.
Lord HOWICK said that he wished, before voting
for the motion of his Hon. Friend, to assign his reason
for doing so.' He was not at all prepared to allow the
practice of opening letters to remain in its present state.
He believed that the present system of secresy was alto-
gether unnecessary.—(Hear, hear.) He was aware that
there was some power requisite for the Secretary of State,
but this practice of opening and resealing letters was
one calculated to create a feeling in the country that
nothing would be safe from the scrutiny of a Minister.
Did the Right Flon. Baronet suppose that, after the nu
merous discussions in that House, the Post-office would
ever be made a !indium for traitorous or seditious com-
munications? He might be assured that it would not,
and if a power was required, as he believed
that to some extent it .W.IIA, • Mc): might take the 811
of hii Honourable 'fiend, and, if they pleased,
introduce a clause into Committee which would have

. - -
the effect of giving a power to the Secretary of State on
extraordinary occasions of opening letters, and of re-
seding them with the Post-office seal. But if this ques
Lion was to be whether they were to give the power,
without modification, or not .give it at all, certainly he
should vote against its being given at all, for be must
say, to slightly alter the words of the Hon. Member for
Shrewsbury (Mr. D'lsraeli), that this system of opening
letters was nothing either more or less than legalised
hypocrisy—(llear, and laughter)--a system of false-
hood, countenanced, recognised, and legalised by Go-
vernment. And if ho were to adopt any opinion on the
subject, it would be the opinion expressed on another
subject by the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire last session,
that " what was morally wrong could never be politi
cally right." The very same argument as was used for
the employment of spies, might be used in defence of
this system of opening letters. They might conceive
themselves justified if they suspected any man of being
dangerous to the Government—they might, he -aid, con-
ceive themselves justified in employing a person to be-
come the servant of that man, and thereby get at all the
private sentiments and proceedings of that individual
through the agency of one whose fidelity ought to be in-
corruptible, but who, in violation of every sense of duty
and honour, should report the secret, and, as was sup-
posed, the unobserved proceedings of his master to the
Government. He, therefore, thought that, under all
these circumstances, he was bound to vote for the Bill
of his Hon. Friend,and if they wished not to promulgate
a great fallacy throughout the country, they should
allow the Bill to be brought in to abrogate, the exercise
of this power, and introduce aclause which should enable
the Secretary of State, under certain cases, to exercise the
power, not in a secret, but in an open manner. He had
understood that the Austrian Government werein the habit
of opening letters and of resealing them with the seal
of the post-office. That was a manly and straightfor-
ward course, and he could not see why this country
could not imitate so excellent an example. For these
reasons he should vote for the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. HUME said, that the real question before the
House was, whether the Government should be allowed
to interfere with the proceedings of foreigners in this
c.,untry. That it was in itself a most odious and ini-
quitous abuse,' and if the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Gra-
ham) knew how much his character, both political and
moral, had been damaged throughout the country—
(Cries of " No, no," from the Ministerial side of the
House). Hon. Gentlemen might express their opinions
as they thought proper, but according to his (Mr!
Hume's) experience, such was the case ; and he be-
lieved that if the Right Hon. Baronet were aware of it,
that he would be one of the first to consent to the remis-
sion of this most odious and unjust power and he could
not help asking why he should object to the abrogation
of a power, which, by his own account, had caused bim
to be badgered, tormented, and abused, from one end of
the country to another. He could tell the Right
Honourable Baronet, that this torment and badgering
was not without a ground, and the effect on his own
reputation would, he (Mr. Hume) felt assured,
be permanent as well as injurious.—(Hear, hear.) He
saw no reason why, if this power were to be exercised
in the supervision of foreigners resident in this country,
and who were supposed to be engaged in some pro-
ceedings hostile to the Government of other nations, it
should not also be exercised over Englishmen, who
might be engaged in similar combinations. England
had hitherto been the refuge of the world for men per-
secuted for their political opinions in other countries,
and were they now to throw aside this, one of the
greatest of the glories which the country possessed,
simply for the sake of interfering with that with which
we had nothing to do? He must say, that he could not
envy the Minister who desired it, and the sooner the
power of opening letters was totally abrogated the
better.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose amid loud and repeated
cries of " Divide, divide," and said that he was sorry to
hear the decision to which the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
James Graham) had come. He had hoped that this
question might have been amicably disposed of by ac-
ceding to his motion for the abrogation of the odious
power which had now so frequently been reprobated in
that House, of opening letters passing through the
Post-office.—(Hear.) Under present circumstances,
the letters of every man were precisely in the same
position as the papers in a man's desk. If the owner of
them were suspected of dangerous or seditious proceed-
ings, the issuing of a warrant would at once subject
them to scrutiny. His Hon. Friend the Member for
London (Lord John Russell) was the only person who
has sat on the Secret Committee who had spoken on the
subject, and he had expressed himself as quite opposed
to the existence of this power. He (Mr. Duncombe)
therefore felt entitled to consider the sentiments of that
Hon. Member as the sentiments of the Committee.—
(" No, no," from several Members.) Why, there was
the Noble Chairman sitting there (Lord Sandon) and he
said not a word in contradiction. But whether this
were so or not, this practice of opening letters
was abhorrent to the people of England—(Hear,
hear)—and, he believed, contrary to the principles
of the Constitution. Such, at least, had been the I
opinion expressed by Lords Denman and Campbell in 1
the House of Lords ; and he might, it is true. be '
accused of possessing a " prurient" curiosity, but he
was curious to know how far the sentiments of the
Secret Committee coincided with the opinions of those
Noble Lords. At any rate, he was determined to know
whether the law would justify any man in the act, either
by himself or his deputy, of opening the letters of
another. He should certainly appeal to the Court of
Queen's Bench, to ascertain whether the warrants issued
by the Secretary of State were legal or not.—(Great
clamour was here made to divide.) He (Mr. Duncombe)
thought that Hon. Gentlemen were more anxious about
their dinners, than about the business of the country—
(Divide, divide)—but ho was determined to do his duty,
note itbstanding the obstruction, the unfair obstruction
which had been thrown in his way, and attempt with his
utmost exertion to do away with this odious, villainous,
and most iniquitous power.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion 7B
Against it
Majority against it
HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. MACKINNON then rose to call the attention of
the House to the report of the Committee and of the
Commissioners on the Health of Towns, regarding in-
terments within the precincts of large towns. He thought
he could not do better, in the few observations he was
about to make, than state to the House the terms of a
petition which he held in his hand, from the Mechanics'
Institute of Manchester. The petition was worded in so
singular -a manner, and so applicable to the subject he
was about to propose to the House, that he
should read the first part of it. The petitioners stated
that they worked hard, that they lived hard, and
that they died hard, and they deemed it doubly
hard that, after their death, their families should be put
to enormous expense in having them interred, and,
after their being interred, their remains should be dese-
crated, as they constantly were, in the town of Man-
chester. He begged leave to present that p
remembered, about three ears ago, when he first
etition. He
brought this measure under the attention of the House,
he was met with laughter. and joking, and observations i
y I
were made upon the absurdity of his proposition. What
was the case three years afterwards? What was now
the opinion of that House, end what were the sentiments
of the country upon the subject? He had had petitions
without number to present to that House. He had had
applications without end on the subject, and the public
prints were full of the nuisance of these interments.
From one end of the kingdom to the other there had
been a strong and violent feeling excited in favour of
some alteration in the present system. He was perfectly
satisfied this practice of interments ought in some mea-
sure to be discountenanced by the House, and whether he
succeeded or not in getting a vote in his favour that
evening, he would use his best endeavours at all times to
get the House to come to a resolution that this nuisance
ought to be abated. But it
don't you bring in a Bill ?" His answer was.that a pri-
vatemight be asked, " Why
possibility with the slightest
Go-
vernment, could not by any because he w
chance of of success bring in a Bill, ld cavil •
differed with him wou with
individual, like himself, unconnected with the
vinced every one who
the details of the Bill—it would be utterly impossible
for him to succeed in it. It was therefore his inten-
tion to propose the following resolution—" That it is the
opinion of this House that it is inexpedient that interments
within the precincts of this metropolis and large towns
should be continued, both as being injurious to the
he would then pledge himself to
Withoutoulddo
health of the people, and as being contrary to public
Bill, but it must be at the same time
decency." If he succeeded in persuading the House to
sogoing back to
abgrrinege
distinctly understood,only as the
ftoortwharisdreasoßl
the G
pioneer of
the dead, either in churches or
of Constantine,
our Saviour, or the time
thatmenhz should
inquire into the practice of interments in the time of
within the precincts of large towns, he would
objected to burying
come at once to tbe recent reports upon this
subject. The first notice taken of interments within
large towns was by
the Ecclesiastical Commission, which
s
was issued by the order of Government. which made its
report, and which report was signed by certain indi-
viduals whose names be would mention. Previously,
however, to doing so, he would read an extract from
Ecclesiastical Commissioner •
the report. The, Eb reported
that " the practice of burials in churches or chancels
appears to us in many respects injurious—in some cases
offensive—in some instances to shut out the public from
the church—and in others it has a tendency to affect the
lives of the inhabitants. We are, therefore, of opinion
that this practice should be discontinued, so far as the
same can be effected without trenching on vested rights."
Now by whom was this report signed? Why it was
signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of
London, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Lincoln,
Lord Tenterden, Lord Welford, and Mr. Chief Justice
Tindal. What was the use of issuing this Commission,
if its report was not to be attended to? In 1842 the
House did him the honour to grant him a Committee
on the subject, of which be was chairman, and which
consisted of Gentlemen who occupied sews on both sides
of the House. Now what was the unanimous report of
that Committee? It was, that the practice of interments
within the precincts of large towns was injurious to the
health of the inhabitan thereof, and frequently offensive
to public decency: (se what._ use now was that Committee,
if, after invstigatingvidence, its report was to be treated
dead letter? bir Benjamin Brodie and Dr. Chem-
as a
hers were examined before that Committee, and what
did these eminent practitioners say? Why, the first
was asked, Do you consider the crowded state of the
grave-yards in this metropolis is in any way the cause
of fever or disease?" The answer was, "I have always
considered it is one cause." Then Dr. Chambers being
applti
d to, as to whether the health of the
community was or was not injured by interments in
large towns, gave this statement:—" I have no doubt
that the fever called typhus, even in the cleanly quarters
of London, owe their origin to. putrid - miasma." He •
would not trouble the House with any further evidence ,
that was taken before that committee. 141.0 w,

after this report and the report of the Ec-
fclesiastical Commission were on the table of the
llouse, what did his Right Hon. Friend the Home
Secretary state ? Why, the Right Hon. Gentleman
stated that he did net believe there was any injury
done by interments in large towns. But the Right
Hon. Baronet not being satisfied with the results
of former inquiries, apppointed Mr. Chadwick, the
secretary to the Poor law Commissioners, to investigate
this subject. Mr. Chadwick was engaged from the
middle of 184;2 to the middle of 1843, in inquiring into
the matter, and then his report was laid before Par-
liament. And what did they find in that report ?
Why, that all interments in close towus contributed to
produce atmospheric impurity, and yet the Right Hon.
Baronet was not satisfied with this opinion.
It seemed to him quite clear that his Right Hon. Friend
having that report before him, .was afraid to give offence
to certain parties. He reminded him of the Pope at
Rome, who said that the acknowledgment of a certain
fact represented to him would be inconvenient, and that,
therefore, the only mine for him was to deny it. One
objection to the measure was, that it would interfere with
the vested rights of the established clergy. But the fact
was, that a large majority of the members of the church
were in favour of the measure ; and in support of that
statement he relied upon the evidence of the Bishop of
London and the Rector of Leeds (Dr. Hook). The great
mass of the Dissenters were also in favour of it, and they
were not at all adverse to a provision for preserving the
vested rights of the clergy. Before he sat down, he
would call the attention of the House to the Second Re-
port of the Committee on the Health of Towns. The
Second Report stated, that the attention of the Commit•
tee had been brought to the injurious effect of the
crowded state of churchyards in large towns—(not re-
ferring to London)—especially in Shields, Chester, and
other towns named. He would now come to another
statement made to him by a gentleman, a
principal member of one of the Inns of Ccurt,
who wrote to • hint to communicate facts of the
most startling character in support of the Bill.
One of those statements referred to a place formerly
called Enon chapel, in the immediate neighbourhood of
Lincoln's Inn. That place was used in the morning as
an infant school, and in the evening as a place for
dancing. In the cellar were deposited the bodies of
nearly 9,000 persons, from which an intolerable stench
was emitted. In the summer a peculiar insect made its
appearance, whilst infectious disease was spread through
the neighbourhood. The police had been applied to ;
but the authorities declared that they had no power to
interfere to remove the charnel-house, or to prevent the
saturnalia that were carried on within it. The letter
was signed by Mr. G. Grace, the principal of Clement's
Inn. The lion. Gentleman then referred to a work
published by the amiable and,learned Evelyn, in the year
1729, in which that good man referred to the practice
of the ancient Christians not to allow -the dead to be
buried within the precincts of their towns ; much less
(according to Evelyn) would they have allowed inter-
ment in their temples. The practice of interment
within churches commenced in the reign of
Charles IL, which was no high authority
for the practice. The number interred in
this metropolis amounted to 1,000 per week, making a
total of upwards of 50,000 a-year. Look, then, to the
enormous mass of human bodies accumulated in the
grave-yards of the metropolis in the course of twenty
years. He was assured, upon high medical authority,
that if the practice were continued many years longer
some dreadful epidemic would suddenly spread amongst
the people. He put it to the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir James Graham) to think of the responsibility which
would fall upon him, if, by rejecting this measure, he
was the means of bringing about any such plague. Was
it not extraordinary and disgraceful, that in this great
metropolis, the centre of the civilisation and the wealth
of the world, such an evil was continued ? That we
were so wedded to the abominable practice of interment
in large towns that neither the Government nor the Le-
gislature would interfere to put an end to it ? He sup-
posed that his Right Hon. Friend would plead the diffi-
culties of the question. But surely those difficulties
ought not to deter his Right Hon. Friend from the per-
formance of a great duty. What he propssed to make
to the House was an abstract proposition condemnatory
of the practice of burying in large towns as injurious to
the public health and to public decency. In submitting
that proposition to the House he was willing to leave
the measure in the hands of the Government, if they
would take it up. If they did not, he would proceed
with his measure himself ; and he would renew it next
year, and again and again, until he succeeded.—(Hear,
hear.) He concluded by moving a resolution to the
effect which ho had stated.

Mr. HUME seconded the motion. He thought it
highly discreditable to this country, that whilst Ger-
many, Spain, and even Sicily had taken measures to
prevent pestilence to the living, from the indecrnt
sepulture of the dead in crowded towns, the abomination
was allowed to continue in this country.—(Hear, hear.)
It was vain for us to exclaim against the barbarity of
savage nations who destroyed one another, whilst our
Legislature allowed pestilence to be engendered and pro
pagated for the destruction of our own people.—(Hear,
hear.) He could not believe that the Hon. Baronet
would allow this state of things to exist longer. He had
stated that there was a measure to that effect about to be
introduced, hut it was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion it would
be of no effect without comprehending interment. In-
stead of bothering themselves with curtailing the hours
of labour of citizens in a healthy state, the Government
ought to interfere to cheek this practice. They
seemed, however, to be utterly apathetic as regarded
this important matter. The Honourable Gentleman
then proceeded to read extracts from the observations of
Dr. Reid, and Mr. Brandt, respecting the dole-
teri3us qualities of the miasma, arising from
churchyards, remarking that though it did
cause material and sudden disease yet it frequently ge-
nerated it by slow degrees. What would be the state of
those inhabitants in the neighbourhood of a churchyard ?
If they had a regular plague in London how soon the
Government would take measures to stop it ; but what
was this but a plague in a lesser degree. Their infor-
mation was not founded on their owr. country ; Professor
Brandt " states that in Paris the water generally eon•
tained a quantity of organic matter, and that it received
a colour from the soil, and that a great number of them
were adjacent to churchyards." It was near 18 years
ago since he moved for returns of the number of church-
yards, their extent, and the number of bodies interred in
them during the year. The reports laid on the table of
the House. Let any one take up the list and it was
enough to disgust any individual Member of Parliament,
and persons of high rank should recollect that they had
duties to perform, and that they ought to consider the
situation of helpless masses of the people, and ought
to see that they were not hastening the
death of their fellow-creatures in this manner, which was
nothing less than savage. Dr. Reid gave instances
where 20 coffins were interred in the space of one grave,
and stated that they were 59 full of carbonic acid that
the grave digger could not venture to go down. He hoped
that the Hon. Member's motion would be supported, and
that Hon. Gentlemen would lend their aid an removing
this evil. Every passage of the book from which he
quoted contained evidence so strong that any one who
read it would be convinced of the great mischief result-
ing from the practice. When the returns were made, he
was sure that Hon. Gentlemen, by paying attention to
them, would see that tens of thousands of pounds which

they were employing to improve different parts of the
world, would be better made use of in assisting that un-
fortunate, hardworking, and valuable class, who became
incapacitated, and were disabled by the bad atmosphere
which they breathed. From the humane feelings of the
House he knew that the Hon. Membtr's resolution
would be carried triumphantly. If the Hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary of State for the Home Department
prepared t Bill to aboli'h that nuisance, it would meet
the same fate. He should like to see the man who
would oppose it. The latter was the course which he
would recommend, and he was of opinion that the Right
Hon. Baronet would pursue it.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon: Member for
Montrose expressed a hope that he should hear some-
thing from bim on this subject which would be satisfac-
tory. But he was afraid, from the exaggerated view
taken on this subject, that he should disappoint the
Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Lymington (Mr.
Mackinnon) had stated, that when he first brought this
matter forward two or three years ago, it was received
with jeers and laughter. He (Sir J. Graham) must say,
that the Hon. Gentleman's memory was deceptive on
that occasion. He saw and heard many discussions with
reference to the public health, and he was sure that a
discussion respecting the health of so large a portion of
the community was never discussed with the slightest
violation of decorum. His Hon. Friend had referred to
his responsibility in this matter—not in direct terms,
but in terms not to be misunderstood. He called him

timid, supine, and negligent, and said that he
was courting spurious popularity, and went so far as to
say, that persons in his position—Members of the
House of Commons—from their station were disposed
to neglect the lower orders. He (Sir J. Graham) was
perfectly aware of his responsibility. He was guided
by a sense of his duty in the matter. But looking to
the importance of this matter, and seeing how much it
was connected with the interests of the poorer classes,
he should pause before he should give his assent to this
resolution. He must be permitted to observe, that
customs in foreign countries were quite inapplicable to
the consideration of this question. In foreign countries
they had no scruple in having recourse to quicklime and
various other matters for the purpose of decomposing
bodies, which would by no means be admitted here.
With regard to the particular case, it was no such easy
matter at once to declare by force of an Act of Parlia-
ment that relations should not be buried in places where
their kindred had been buried. He would not believe it
to be a matter of expense or outward decorum. There
existed inward feelings—feelings which were entitled to
the utmost respect, and which were not peremptorily to
be violated by any one. His Hon. Friend said that, with
respect to the practice that prevailed in this city regard-
ing the interment of the dead, there existed a strong
feeling—that the practice was abhorrent to human na-
ture, disgusting, and classed them with barbarians. He
was reminded of his duty with respect to public
health ; he demurred to the opinion that public
health was injured by interments in cities. Con-
sidering the amount of population, there was no
metropolis in Europe where public health prevailed to
the same extent. Then the Hon. Member said that this
was a painful subject, and not suited for discussion in a
public assembly like this. The Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Montrose referred to the fact, that health
‘‘es contiguous to the
period were his wife
was impaired by residing in the neighbourhood of
churches. That he did not agree to. The Bishop of
London, for he did not see why lie should not give his
tmatrhkeedretchtaotryat
n 'o
authority, told him that, when he was the rector of
and family more healthy than when tho' residered there.
With regard to the rectory of St. James's and St. G*l ' es s,
he did not believe that these iesidenees were
cßhisuhrc°hP,sgaantde'hetire
unhealthy;
nor did he believe that George-street, near St. Mar:
garet's, was unhealthy, but he understood that it
was one of the roost healthy places in the City.

• He should wish to see the Hon. Member for Lyminiton
bring in a.Bill. He had given his attention to this sub-
j 'et, and had been the chairmen of a Committee who in-
q tired into the matter, and ought to be able to give
' nem much information as to the mode of legislating.
Having presided over a Committee, and knowing what
the measure should be, he ought not to proceed by an
abstract resolution of this kind. He thought it an impe-
diment to legislation. He would ask him as their pioneer
not to press his resolution, but at once to produce
his measure. He begged to be allowed to call the
attention of the House to the importance of his resolu-
tion. He said that interment within the City wits
a breach of public decorum—that it was in-
consistent with social feeling, and with public
health.—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir James Graham)
was not prepared to coincide with these statements.
With regard to public decorum he could not understand
how any further legislation' was necessary to check it.
With reference to the case of the Spa-fields burying-
ground, he thought it his duty on the part of the Go-
vernment to institute prosecutions. The matter was
now pending. At the instance, and by the in-
stigation of the Government, the parties had been
prosecuted, and if the facts should be fully established,
he thought the law was strong enough to grapple with
the matter. Let them proceed to the Bill prohibiting
interment in cities, adopting the suggestion given them
by Mr. Chadwick, he was perfectly sure that public
feeling would be excited to the strongest de-
gree; and if they did not take care it would be violated.
As long as they confined themselves to abstract resolu-
tions, the public would not become very much interested.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners reported only against
interment in chancels; and the report of the Sanatory
Commission, which glanced on the subject incidentally,
proposed nothing specific. He admitted that the health
of the people in large towns was only to he dealt with
by the Government in a comprehensive measure. The
Bill was almost prepared, and it would be brought before
the House by his Noble Friend the Earl of Lincoln this
present session. Yet he thought that this sub-
ject was so marked and distinguished from all other
causes of disease that it would be expedient to
keep it out of the operation of this measure.
Then, with respect to the terms of the report of Mr.
Chadwick, his labours on this subject had been most
extensive, but he thought there was something ex-
aggerated in his views, and his remedial measures had
convinced him of the ill effect of legislating on the
subject.. Now what was the proposition of Mr. Chad-
wick? Why that all the arrangements for interments,
which had been hitherto conducted by private hands,
should be carried out by the Government, and that those
interments should take place at least four miles
outside the walls of the metropolis. He
thought that they ought to take care how they
adopted such principles by premature enactment; he
thought matters had much better be left to them-
selves, and by that means the community would be much
more inclined to accede to the plan. He • believed
that the adoption of the proposition of Mr. Chadwick,
to take out of the hands of private parties, and place in
the hands of the Government the conducting of inter-
ments, whatever sanction it might meet with within
those walls, would out of doors be generally repudiated.
He though the utmost caution ought to be observed in
legislating on the subject. lie would willingly agree to
any measure—indeed, bring it forward—if he et uld only
meet one that was likely to turn out satisfactory; but, as
at present advised, he had not as yet been able to pro
cure or meet with a measure that was, in his opinion,
worthy of adoption. It had been asserted in that
House that he (Sir J. Graham) ought to bring
forward some me asure on the subject, but the
question was, what that measure should be, in
order fully to grapple with the evils com-
plained of ? He must say, that on the part of' the
Government, lie was not prepared to bring in any mea-
sure, and he thought, therefore, it would be most im-
proper to agree to the resolution of the Hon. Member
for Lymington. His Hon. Friend had told the House
that lie was prepared to bring in a Bill, hut it was ac-
companied with the condition of the House passing the
resolution. He (Sir James Graham) could not see the
necessity of carrying the resolution before bringing in a
Bill. Why not, he would ask, let the Bill be brought
in, and then let the House give its opinion upon it? With
every disposition to give the most candid consideration
to any measure brought forward by his lion. Friend the
Member for Lymington, be felt bound to tell him
that he was compelled to oppose the resolution.
Mr. BERNAL thought there was great difficulty in
the resolution proposed, and although he was prepared
to go along with the Hon. Member for Lymington, in
the principe of the resolution, he could not agree to all
its dogmas. As to saying there were no dangers in in-
terments in large towns, he need only refer to some of
the first authorities in medicine and science to contra-
dict that assertion. He believed there was a great deal
of exaggeration on the subject of the number of burials
that took place in the metropolis, because it must be ad-
mitted that the cemeteries of Kcnssl-green and other
places drew a great number of interments from the
centre or the metropolis. But still, however, it
must be admitted that a great number of
burials took place, especially in the neighbour-
hoods in • which the poor resided. In fact, the
poor were the parties who • generally suffered, and as a •
proof of that, he need only call upon lion. Members, if
they disbelieved him, to go to such places as St. Cle-
ment's, Clare-market, and St. Anne's, Soho. If the
Right Hon. Gentleman was prepared to say he would
bring in some measure to relieve the poor of the neces-
sity of burying their dead in those places, he would say
at once to the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Lyming-
ton, abandon your resolution and leave the subject to the
consideration of the Government. He thought it unfair
to say that it was the ministers of the Established
Church alone that offered the only difficulty to the re-
moval of these nuisances. He considered that his
Honourable Friend the Member for Lymington •
had not presented to the House such a
resolution as he could agree to vote for, but, at the same
time, he must say that the Right Hon. Baronet at the
Heed of the Home Department would not do his duty
either to the House or the country unless he did some-
thing on the subject, either in the course of the present,
or the next session. Some endeavour should be made to
elose those places of infection to which he had alluded—
namely, the burying-grounds of St. C'ement's Clare-
market, and St. Anne's, Soho. He, for one, should be
heartily glad to see them closed ; and it was his firm
belief that some arrangemait might be made with the
parish authorities to obtain so desirab'e an object as that
of preserving the health of those who lived there.
Dr. BOW RING was afraid that the speech of the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Depart-
ment gave no hope to his Hon. Friend, who had intro-
duced the subject, that it would receive the favourable
consideration of the Government. Ile thought it a dis-
grace to a country like England, that the example of
foreign states had not been followed by it. In France,
Spain, Germany, Denmark, and in the Oriental world,
the cemeteries were removed from the inhabitel places.
Nothing could be more distressing than the manner in
which the poor were interred in this great city. It was
stated in the report of Mr. Chadwick that Mr. Wild had
stated that in many instances no less than from ten to fif-
teen funerals were appointed to take place at the same
time. That, of course,tthe funerals took place in a hur-
ried manner, and that the poor constantly complained of
this, and asked him the reason. As far as re-
garded the middle and the higher classes, they were
leaving the city and interring their departed friends in
the •sme'eries surrounding London. He believed the
receipt of the fees for burials was the great, if not the
only cause for the objection that had been made to the
removal of burial-grounds out of great cities.—(Hear.)
He could not concur with his Hon. Friend (Mr. Bernal)
that the resolution of the Hon. Member for Lymington
was exaggerated, because it was his firm belief that in
the vast number of burials which took placa in large
towns,especially in London, the public health was sacri-
ficed and decorum violated. If the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department would take in
hand the fees, and tell the clergy that they would lose
nothing, the whole difficulty would be removed. Let
any person follow the poor man to his grave—
(Hear, I hear)—and see the dreadful receptacle
that was prepared for his body mingling with its parent
earth, and he wouldat once exclaim that the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Lymington ought to be carried
out. Let that same individual go to Turkey and see
the difference there. The interment of the most menial
was respected, and his body left to moulder in a paradise
rather than in a charnel house.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MAHON did not think the Right lion. Baronet
had exaggerated the difficulties of the subject, but he
certainly had underrated its importance.—(Hear, hear.)
No question was more essential to the health and well
being of large towns.—(llette, hear.) True, they had
been told that the Government had measures in view for
improving the health of large towns by draining, ventila-
tion,_ supplying them with water, and so on; but that was
nothing compared with the importance of the present
question.—(Hear, hear.) Of what use, he would ask,
was ventilation, when it carried with it an atmosphere
that contained pestilence and death? or what was the
use of supplying those places with water, when that ele-
ment contained all that was rank and noxious,
.and
inimical to human life? He could not follow his Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment in the manner in which he treated so lightly
the course pursued by foreign nations.—(liear,hear.) lie
believed that there was no country in Europe,
with the exception of England, that permitted
interments in the hearts of their capitals. On
those grounds, then, he would say that there was no
subject could conic before the Legislature that more
emphatically demanded the attention of the Legislature
and the public than this.—(Hear, hear.) But at the
same time he should say that he had very little hope of
any beneficial result following public legislation upon
it, because there were so many private interests con-
nected with those burying grounds that would be sure
to interfere. However, if there should be legislation
upon the subject, he would be very happy to give any
assistance in his power, for he did think the subject was
one that demanded immediate attention ; but at the same
time he should say he could not agree in the
terms of the resolution proposed by his Honour-
able Friend. When the Honourable Member for
Lymington first mentioned this subject to him, he
told him he would always vote for any resolution
declaring that interment within large towns was not
conducive to the health of the inhabitants of those towns,
but at the same time he was of opinion, that any
legislative measure that should be proposed on the sub-
ject should be confined to the metropolis ; and then,
after a little time, Vended to the country towns. But
he saw, by
.the resolution of his Hon. Friend, that he did
not even mention large towns, he merely said towns.
Mr. MACKINNON here interrupted the Noble Lord,
arid, as we understood, told him, that the resolution did
contain the words " large towns."
Lord MAHON—WeII, then, be had been mistaken
in that particular ; but-still he could not concur in the
-resolution in its present shape, 'while, 'at the same time,
he would always be ready to urge upon the Govern-
ment the necessity for some useful and efficient legisla-
tion upon the subject.

Lord EBRINGTON said he believed that the princi-
ple advocated by the lion. Member opposite was one
which that lion. Member believed would be one of
public utili'y ; but he (Lard Ebringteen) had heard
other speeches upon the proposition, which to him
appeared to contain many Inman thy and noxious preju-
dices, and into which had been thrown a set of objec-
tions to public improvement that would itnpeee and
delay measures necessary leer the better regulation of
the morals and dee ney of the community. He did
think, that the reasons assigned by the Right Hon.
Baronet opp: site fur his opposition to the measure were
I not borne out by the facts ; and even his facts had not
been borne out by the statements of those who were
better qualified from their information upon the sub-
ject, to speak upon it; and nothing but the speech he
(Lord Ebrington) had heard from the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet would hate induced him to address the House on
the proposition. When the Right lion Baronet had
said, that the object of foreign countries in their inter-
ments was to accelerate decomposition by artificial
means, he appeared to have forgotten or not to have read
what had been written on the subject by men very con-
versant with it. lie (Lord Ebrington) held in his hand
the report of Dr. Reid, in which it was stated that at
Frankfort, and at Munich, and many other places on the
Continent, not more than one body was permitted to be
interred in one grave, in order that the process of de-
composition might go on regularly; but the passage did
not contain one word about " artificial means," but
quicklime had in some instances been used, though it.
had not been practised generally. Another instance
mentioned by the Right Hon. Baronet as the practice of
bite: ments in foreign countries was rather unfortunate
for him, namely, that those who lived in the vicinity of
St. Margaret's Church had net found any noxious or
offensive exhaleations coming from that churchyard.
But what did Dr. Reid report? Why, that the air in
the vicinity of St. Margaret's Church was very unwhole-
some and injurious, not only in the morning and the
night time, but also during the day, and that offensive
exhalations had been frequently observe 1 by many per-
sons. Surely, then, when such a statement as this comes
from such an authority as Dr. Ileid, it was rather too.
much for the Right Hon. Baronet to say that the vicinity
of St. Margaret's was a healthy locality. And, again,
as to the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet that those
who resided in houses surrounding churchyards, in
crowded and populous localities, were not injured by
noxious exhalations, he was again contradicted by the
same report ; but he would not trespass longer on the time
of the House by reading further extracts from it.
He (Lord Ebrington)_ was fully aware that the Right
Hon. Baronet had very many, and perhaps much more,
important mutters to attend to, and that he might not
have given this question all the attention that others
scented to think it demanded. Hite had he would have
found that this was one of as great importance to the
publ c as any now under his consideration, fur nothing
could exceed the efficct upon the health of the people of
interments in churchyards situated in populous localities
and large cities. Those elf, cts were felt in a sanatory,
in a moral, and in a religious point of view. And he
had no doubt but that so long as such interments were
continued the localitie s would not be freed from the dis-
tressing end disgusting exhibitions they had heard of.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had suggested
a remedy, it was true, but he had forgotten that that
applied only to rich people, and the poor could not avail
themselves of it. On the whole, then, he should say he
would be very ;lad if the Hon. Member opposite would
modify his.motton, but even as it stood he would support
it.—(tlear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES said that he differed front his Noble.
Friend, for it. did appear to him that great difficulty lay.
in the way of legislating upon this subject ; and that
fact had been proved when a Bill was introduced upon
a former occasion, when the opposition to it was so great
by those who possessed private property in the places
proposed to be affected, that the Bill was abandoned.
If the proposition of the lion. Member opposite was to
be carried, the Dissenters would give it their most deter-
mined opposition, for that body had upon a former
occasion recorded their opinions in reference to it in a
resolution which he found in Chadwick's report. The
Hon. Member had stated that he was willing to protect
vested rights, but he (Mr. Hawes) would ask what
means had the Hon. Member of ascertaining the extent
of those rights ?—(Hear, hear.) Reference had been made
by an Hon. Member near him to the practice of foreign .
countries in this respect, but he would ask was the
House prepared to adopt similar measures for this coun-
try. In those foreign countries the burial of the dead
was a regulation of police which it would be impossible
to bring into practice here, because it would involve the
fermation of a peculiar tariff, a scale of charges, and the
establishment of a staff of officers of various sorts, and
all this would entail upon the country a vast increase of
expense. The Honourable Member for Montrose,
in his observations upon this question, had forgotten to
say one word in regard to vested rights; but as he (Mr.
Hawes) had already occupied the House longer than he
intended, he would not take up its time further than to
say that the difficulties in the way oflegislating upon this
subject were so great and insuperable that he shoulde
vote against the motion of the Hon. Member.
Mr. BORTHWICK said that this was a question
which required the most laborious attention; in fact, he
conceived, that too much attention could not be paid to
it. He did hope that his lion. Friend would modify his
resolution, when he considered well the form in which
he had placed it before the House. As to the practices
in Oriental countries and the South of Europe, in regard
to interment, he begged to remind the House that those
differences arose, not only from the differences of cli-
mate, hut from the differences of the religious creeds of
those countries. lie would recommend his Hon. Friend
to modify his resolution in suoh a way as to induce the
House to adopt it.
The Earl of LINCOLN said the lion. Member for
Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) had so candidly and so very ably.
stated the difficulties which attached to any legislation
upon this very important subject, that he would not have
risen to address the House at that period of the debate
if it had not been that the Noble Lord the Member for
Plymouth (Lord Ebrington) had so strangely
mis-
represented, and therefore misunderstood, the observa-
tions of' his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State
for the Home Department. The Noble Lord had charged
the Right Hon Baronet with endeavouring to revive
and establish old, vulgar, and almost exploded prejudices
on this subject, and of throwing his weight into the scale
of private interest. His night lion. Friend, he was
sure, in the statement which he had made, had done
nothing more than endeavour to impress on the
House the extreme importance of not exaggerating
the evils which they were called upon to remedy,
at the same time impressing on the House
the difficulties which attached to a remedy for those,
evils. He (Lord Lincoln) thought that was a sufficient
answer on the part of his Right Hon. Friend, when he
was charged with throwing his weight into the scale of
private interests. His Right Hon. Friend had told the
House that he had himself endeavoured to apply a re-
medy to some of the evils complained of. He stated
that he had instituted proceedings against some of those
parties who had private interests in burial-grounds, and
his Right lion. Friend then stated that it would be diffi-
cult to introduce any logislative measure on the subject,
such as would be likely to be adopted by Parliament.
lie (Lord Lincoln) would wish to impress on the House
that this was not a mere question of vested interests, but
it was one especially involving the interests of those very
parties for whom the lion. Member for IVeymouth and.
the Hon. Member for Bolton in the course of their ad--
dresses had endeavoured to impress on the Ilouse.the
propriety of agreeing to this measure—he meant the
poor. He considered that the poor man was more mate.,
rially interested its this matter than the rich, and it was
on account of the interests of the poor that they ought to
hesitate before they adopted a resolution such as
that which his Hon. Friend had proposed for restraining for
ever and entirely all interments in all the towns throughout
the kingdom. Let the House consider how such legislation
as this would affect the pecuniary interest of the poor. It
might be of minor importance to the rich to be compelled to
inter their relations at a distance from their residences, but it
must entail on the poor an enormous additional expense. Look
at this metropolis, where, as his Noble Friend (Lord Mahon)
had truly said, the principal difficulties were to be found.
Would they compel the poor inhabitant of St. Giles's to ac-
company the dead body of his relation to a cemetery beyond
Hampstead, half-way to Harrow? Let the House consider
not only the pecuniary expense of this, but almost impossi-
bility of its being effected. There would be a heavy charge
for coach hire, which could not affect the rich, but which the
poor could never bear. This difficulty was felt most strongly
by the very individual who had made his report to the Home-
office, which had been so much dwelt upon that
evening—be meant Mr. Chadwick. How did he pro.
pose to remedy the evil complained of ? Why, in
the manner alluded to by the Iloneurable Member
for Lambeth—namely, that the matter should be left to police
regulations. This plan, therefore, would rest upon the poor-
rates, and every poor man or artisan who would not be will-
ing to lose a day's work, would look upon this mode of burying
his relative as a relief from the poor-rate, whereby he would
be placed in the position of a pauper. lie ( Lord Lincoln)
thought that the feelings of the pour were ver\ materially con-
bceernbe,idogitite,tfhilsyintbuestthioonse.
ofThfwirsehlta,(tlivtelsia;
atihi
de i rthbeorneefes
re tshouldthey
y
would be averse to such a measure as this. He did not wish
to deprecate legislation on this subject, he merely wished it,
himepwreasssanexeiotubsethilarthsee it ihoeuds
ei ffischuol
ut ileds wnohticadh aotpttenaderdesiotl;utaionnd
such as that proposed by his Hon. Friend, which would pre-
clude the consideration of the details of any future mea-
sure, and would irrevocably pledge- them to a principle
from which they never afterwards could recede. He could not
see why his Honourable Friend had departed from the usual
practice of introducing a Bill upon this subject which would be
discussed in one of its stages. The Hon. Gentleman who had
lastto modify his resolution.adelressedtheHous He
House had recommended his Hon. Friend
(Lord Lincoln) hoped his Hon.
Friend would do no such thing, but he hoped that he would
withdraw the resolution, and move for leave to bring in a Bill
upon this subject. Even if his resolution should be affirmed
it would not advance any measure which he might introduce.
and if it should he negatived it would considerably impede its
progress.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that in compliance with the
wish of his Hoe. Friend, the Member for Lyiningtcm, be
was about to propose an amendment, which he trusted
would meet with the general consent of the House, at all
events he hoped it would be supported by a majority of
that House. The amendment which he had to propose, in
compliance with the wish of his lion. Friend, was, that the
practice of interments within the precincts of the metropolis -
and large cities is injurious to the health of the population
and demands the serious attention of Parliament. What were
the objections with which the questien had been met? It had
been said that his Hon. Friend should at once have brought in
a Bill. Why, his Hon. Friend had already tried that course,
without success, and he now proposed to try a resolution.
hisHe
Worn. (FDe
Friend o
co mbo the Health
e) had
d
the
of Townspleasure
Committer,o serving with
and
never was there a stronger case made out for legislative
inter-
ference than in that Committee. He represented that por-
und. The
existed with respect to the Spa-fields burying.grti in
the
tion of the metropolis in which great excitement
. at present
Noble Lord had stated that to make any
the
alteration
feelings of the
law on this subject would be to strike
their bones with
t)sey complained of
those of their ancestors. Why, what _
poor of this country, as they wished to mingle
The reason why an objection
was, that they could not de this.
was raised to any alteration of the law was, that certain parties
were making large fortunes under the existing s; stem. Enor.
mous fees were demanded for the removal of a corpse out of the