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

legal question. He had always had the utmost respect for
Westminster Hall, and made one in the smallest minority in
that House that ever divided in support of the supremacy of
the Courts of Common-law. But he thought it was
a Hovel and somewhat dangerous opinion which
was broached by the Honourable Member for
Sheffield, that a point of constitutional law was not a point
of discussion in that House. How would the question of ge-
neral warrants ever have been decided, if a friend of the Go-

vernment had then risen in his place and said that this was not
a question with which the representatives of the people ought
to interfere ? The only difference between this case and that of
gen.ral warrants e as, that the exercise of a remarkable pewee
by the Secretary of State rested on a positive statute. and the
only fault found with the Minister was, that he continued to
exercise that power when the statute was not only become
obsolete but had altogether ceased.—(Hear, and aheers.)
No person could contend that this power had been con-
ferred by the statute. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he
acted in pursuance of the statute, but he did not put his finger
on the statute ; and the Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister
of the Crown had told the House that Parliament had created
the power which the Government had exercised, but the Right
Hon. Gentleman did not put his finger on the statute. The
statute of Anne had been alluded to repeatedly, but no member
of the Government had said where it bore upon the present
case. The Secret Committee had evinced its anxiety to
go into antiquarian research and historical dissertation ;
had they consulted other information, which lay nearer their
nose, instead of musty records in the Rolls-office, they might
have settled the question for ever. The words in the statute
were only an echo of the sentence to be found in the prelimi-
nary proclamations of the Crown. They never found any allu-
sion, until the reign of Anne, that any practice of the kind at
present under discussion existed, or the means where-
by the right use of such a search was guaran-
teed. And for good reasons, no one versed in
the common law would pretend that it had any
foundation in common law—the interference of a Minister a f
State, on such a subject, and under such circumstances, was
fur too highly political, and could only he justified on great
political grounds, which would amply justify it.--( Hear, hear. )
But in the Parliament of Anne, when the first Act was
passed respect,ng the Post-office, how was the Parliament
constituted? Not of men as innocent as the men constituting
this Assembly—they were not men like his Hon. Friend the
Member fur Hull, who, like himself (Mr. Disraeli) and many
others, were ignorant of the practice pursued at the present
day, until accidentally revealed ; but the men who formed
the Parliament of that day were the descendants of Hanspden
and of Elliott—they were the sons of men who, only fifty
years before exercised the sovereign power in England—men
versed in the traditions of the assembly in which they sat,
made acquainted with all the secret practices of the Govern-
ment, and therefore an Act of Parliament was passed, pro-
viding that no letter passing through the Post-office should be

tampered with, except by the Secretary of State. It was to
prevent the interference of eonnexions with their correspondence.
and to make one man of station alone responsible for such acts.
But that did not make the Secretary of State sufficiently ans-
werable to the injured individual. The Secretary of State kept
back the letters on his own responsibility. The colleague of
the Hon. ,Member for Finsbury ( Mr. Wakley) asked what was
meant by the responsibility of Ministers? He said it was a

phantom and a shadow, which no one could understand. There
certainly was some force in the remark of the Hon. Member. He
thought the political responsibility of Ministers was a mere farce.

Ministerial responsibility to the majority of men—his own
creation—offered no guarantee to society ; but the responsi-
bility of Ministers, under these circumstances, to this House is
a precise, complete, and perfect responsibility which the laws
of England recognise. In the case of general warrants the
House of Commons supports the Minister in his issue of
them. What occurs ? Under the Act for the regulation of
the press in the reign of Charles IL, the Minister issued a
general warrant, though that Act was unheard of before the
time of Bolin2broke. In 1763, general warrants were issued.
The House of Commons vindicated the Minister. The case

was brought before the Courts of Westminster Hall (the case
of Leach was familiar to every lawyer), a verdict was given
for the plaintiff, and what did the House of Commons
do? Why, they supported Ministers. But they met next day
and unanimously voted that general warrants %re illegal. This
case clearly showed the responsibility of Ministers, and the
case was analogous to the present. The action parallel in this
case to that. The House of Commons now qualified its former
opinion as regarded the legality as well as every other part of
the question. He stopped one moment to consider
what was the really interesting portion of the case
as it had been put by the Right Honourable
Secretary at War. Before he approached it he would clear
the ground of all other questions into which the House had
entered so largely He was not present, but he understood the
Government had amply vindicated itself with regard to the
Italian exiles. To him, he confessed, that was not surprising.
He knew enough of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
' Affairs to know that, however active he might be in the duties
of office, he was a nobleman of the most generous impulse,
and he felt persuaded that if, under present circumstances, he
had erred at all, he would have erred on the side of indul-
gence and lenity. If the Noble Lord hail exercised
his discretion, if he had communicated the information which it
was alleged had brought about this catastrophe—even if what
occurred could be attributed to that information ; he would
not have presnmed to scrutinise the conduct of Ministers in
such a position, and under such circumstances with severity.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, that great master of analytical narrative,
who placed before the House with painful perspicuity what
would have been the consequences if the letter to M.
111azzini had not been intercepted. Every event that might
have occurred was mapped before them with a precision
which was almost prophetic. How the letter was sent_
and received in the almost solitary island of the Mediterranean,
the expedition of twenty unarmed men, the invasion of Ca-
labria, the insurrection of the North of Italy, the Austrians
crossing the Appenines, the French crossing the Alps,—all
these were detailed with surprising minuteness and accuracy.
The danger of a general war was also insisted upon in forcible
language. These things, he repeated, were related with painful
accuracy. Therefore, he would disembarrass them finial the
circumstances in which he believed the Government wet e really
not to blame ; and which, even if the statement of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury had been correct, they should tyd rashly
give a decision on the merits ; and having fully considered the
legal part of the question introduced by the Right Hen. Baro-
net the First Lord of the Treasury, he came now to the poli-
tical considerations which formed the second part of his
speech. The Right Hon. Gentleman would pardon him for
saying that on that occasion he displayed unusual warmth.
He knew that under these circumstances it did not follow that.
the Right Hon. Gentleman really felt—(Great laughter.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great man, and held a
great position, and should not lose his temper; but in a popu-
lar assembly it was sometimes necessary to have the appear-
ance of acting the choleric gentleman.—( Hear.) He knew
occasions when the Right _Honourable Gentleman struck
the red box very emphatically, when his cause was not
the bust.—( Renewed laughter.) He believed that some-
times the younger Members were frightened at the
heat of the Minister, but he (Mr. D'lsraeli) had as
often assured them that there was not the least need for alarm.

It was not so serious a case—the Prime Minister was not going
to eat them. ( Continued laughter.) He would cool presently ;
they knew not what the Right Hon. Gentleman would do,
bat it generally came to a call upon them to rescind their
votes.—(Great laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman hav-
ing divided his defence of the Government under two heads—
having argued with great detail upon the report, and having
proved that they were wrong on this consideration, bat not
trusting too mush to the position which he had (chosen to
occupy, took refuge in the consideration of high political topies.
It was but lately they had been somewhat surprised by the
speech of an Honourable Member (Mr. J. S. Wortley).
He would not say that the present debate would be brought to
a close, but most certainly he doubted whether the amendment
of the Noble Lord would have been produced but for that
speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman—after he nad assured .
them that in 11S4t? the country was in great danger, and that
the responsibility devolved on Government of quelling that
danger. After his quotation of that evidence, which at the'
time was not received with all the credit which it had lately
received. After the Right Hon Gentleman had, in fact,
more than intimated that it was possibihie even for a Member
of Parliament to be concerned in a conspiracy and in rebellion,
it seemed to him impossible that the question could be left
otherwise than as it was.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend
the Member for Hull ( Sir J. lianmer) had spoken with candour,
yet with a becoming deference to the character of the gentle-
men composing the Secret Committee, of the report furnished
to the House on that subject. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) knew that
his Hon. Friend and many other gentlemen had, before
entering the House, entertained an intention, if not of
supporting, certainly with a very great bias in favour
of the Committee. But certainly after the distinct asser-
tion of the Honourable Member for Finsbtiry that this was
not a question of private feeling or of personal vengeance
—and the assertion had a sort of authenticity attached to it—
he was justified in taunting a Minister of State, who opened
his letters, with practices which he rightly described as dis-
graceful to himself and his constituents.—(Cheers.) He was
animated' with the same feelings as other gentlemen, and he
did own that, in this instance, he was not opposed to examina-
tion and inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) He himself could not be
supposed to have any hostile feeling to the Right Hon. Baro-
net, whose honour he had found unquestioned, and from whom
he had received nothing but courtesy—(lronical cheers, conti-
nued for some time, mingled with cries of " Na, no")—and
whatever the imputation—( Cheers of derision Interrupted the
sentence). He spoke the feeling of all gentlemen who had
business transactions with him.--(Cries of " Oh, oh," and
ironical cheers from all parts of the House.) He (Mr.
D'lsraeli) was sorry that these expressions—expressions per-
fectly sincere—should create emotions in the House of such a
character.—(Oh, oh.) It was quite impossible that under
the circumstances, and with the novel features the accusation
had assumed, it could be passed over in silence. The cir-
cumstances of that accusation were different from those
under which the Honourable Member for Finsbury had first
addressed the House and called for an inquiry. At that time
the House entertained no idea, and lie believed that such did
not exist in the Hon. Member's own breast, that his letters
had been opened. The Hon. Member for Bute (Mr. J.
Wortley) was mistaken in advancing the opinion he had that
night. He had no means of appealing to the heart—if such
existed—for some persons doubted whether Members of Par-
liament had hearts—(Laughter)—but when he laid down the
principle that there was no difference betwen the representa-
tive and his constituency, such a position was neither. con-
stitutional nor legal. It was opposed to all practice, ando _tee
the spirit of the House, and most odious and &xious !
wth.
feelings of the country.—(Great cheering.) Ho a.greed wasthis
one of the most delicate powers which could be exercisedby
the Government. A Member of Parliament might be conidered
• • upon any or every subject of complaint,should
that in format', n
as a sort of political father confessor ; and itsasniuch better
,r thanthe trust
preventionto theof
tehuarte eniel:
lance of the e
be conveyed
city.—(Cheers.) They were going to give an independent
tv.Po'tset without heeding what side of the House they usually sup-
Stoctrieletarry"orfesSentatatetivioe
I That was no question of party. They could nut un-
derstand the feelings of the Members of the Secret Committee
—they consisted of gentlemen whom all respected; but the
instructions of the House did not animate them to do more
than the report exhibited. Sk hat had in this ease
happened to one Minister might happen t 3 another.—
ilaerNeVal7oelriean Atlithe
fea‘l'lHtshsaer,thihrdears.e"a)r
of
Y minion,itsitrav't ihat
he(C rmieisghto
and was it to be said, that one of t h ercselves—a .Nlenaber of
that House—should be made an example of? It seemed as
if the Government had said, " This is a happy
take advantage of it." The lion. Gentleman had made a
distinct accusation. He had asserted, and they must suppose
the lion. Mrinber belie.:ed that his letters had been opened.
He (Mr. )israeli) did not hesitate to say that they (the Go-
vernment) might open all his letters, provnied they in courtesy
answered them.—(Laughter.) The amendment proposed by
the Noble Lord, and which he intended to second, the Govern-
ment would allow, was not of the same character with the first
motion of the Hon. Member on the same subjec'. He did
not think that because one of the constituents of an Hon.
Member should be suspected of sedition, that therefore
the correspondence with his representative should be opened.
—( Sir R. Peel, irenieally—" Hear, hear.") He did not
understand the sarcasm intended by the Right Hon. Baronet;
for he had heard it said that, notwithstanding a friend of the
Right Hon. Baronet's was engaged in Despard's plot, hi
communicated with him.—( Hear, hear, anti cheers.) He
understood that friend held office in the Administration.—
( Great cheering.) He therefore thought that the Right
Hon. Baronet might have reserved his sarcasm.—(
Cheeros;)
And he would add that, when taunted while speaking asht
time ago, he hod no intention of making an,
unseen