The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-19 00:00:00

S
teiN711,24.,:a.-ivt*
-WA3:
2 _

srfealiesstThskr n 411 sles
by reason of the suspicion which it wool e
f reasons he wished that this country should geetairafeertpraetitAler
which, so far from being beneficial, was, hef/Teslikht °en the
whole, likely to prove hurtful, by making this country, instead
of an asylum, as it had been for the exile, rather a trap for
ensnaring them, and handing them over to foreign Govern-
ments.—( Hear. )
Sir ROBERT PEEL apprehended that the question to
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had adverted was
not the question now under the consideration of the House.
A great part of the speech:of the Hon and Learned Gentleman
was occupied in discussing whether it was desirable or not,
that the power should be continued in the Secretary of State,
at his discretion and on his own responsibility, to open letters.
The discussion of that subject would come much better under
the notice of the Mouse in the shape of a distinct motion for
altering the existing law and the existing usage, rather than
upon the particular motion which the Han. Member for Fins-
bury had introduced ; and if it were desirable that the course
hitherto pursued in this respect by the Secretary of State
should be altered, he thousht the substitute which the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had offered would be scarcely prefer-
able—a stringent Alien Act.—( Hear, hear.) He did not
think the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could have bean pre.
sent at the discussions which took place on a former occasion;
for if he had been present lie would have seen that the Alien
Act was repealed from the impression that the Alien Act might
be made subservient, not to the interests of this country, but to the
paomotion of the policy and interests of foreign countries.—
( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman really
believe that the alien was exposed, ender ordinary circum-
stances, to more inconvenience and danger than he would be
if there was an absolute discretion and power to remove the
alien from the country altogether ? The alien might be ex-
posed to immediate danger from such a course. He hoped
that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who seemed to be the
warmest advocate for parting with this power, would see the
injustice of his opinion. He hoped the House would not allow
the future consideration of that question to be prejudiced by
the discussion which had taken place, nor by the suggestions
which had been given. The Hon. Gentleman, the Member for
Montrose, had made suggestions at variance with those of the
lion. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury. The motion of
the latter was for a new Committee; but the Honourable
Member far Montrose, instead of a new Committee; pre-
ferred publishing the evidence which had been taken
before the former Committee. Why, what were the
facts? This House, after a full consideration and dis-
cussion, determined to appoint a Select Committee, and they
further determined that that Committee should be secret.
The Committee was accordingly so appointed, and in order
that a full and unreserved disclosure might be made before
the members of that Committee, by those who had been Mi-
nisters of the Crown, the members of this as well as of the
former Administration had each solicited her Majesty's per-
mission to make a full disclosure of every fact. They had
received permission from her Majesty to make such disclosures,
upon the statement that the Committee was to be a secret
one, and therefore that they could, without prejudice to the
public interest, make that frank and unreserved disclosure.—
( Hear, hear.) The permission cf her Majesty had been
granted upon these terms. He believed the Noble Lord op-
posite (Lord John Russell) had been examined before that
Committee.—(Lord ;John Russell nodded assent.) The late
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been examined—the
present Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been examined, as well
as the present Secretary of State. He (Sir R. Peel) had been
examined before that Committee, having received the permission
of her Majesty to make a full and unreserved disclosure; theyhad
withheld no fact—nothing even affecting the interests of indi-
viduals or the general interests of the country—in order that the
Committee ought form a judgment as to the exercise of the
power vested in the Secretary of State. On these conditions,
he repeated, those persons had been examined, and now 'the
Hon. Gentleman asked that all the evidence so given, in order
that the elements of the judgment of the Committee might be
perfect, should be published.—( Hear, hear.) The House would
hardly sanction that proposal.—( Hear, hear.) As to the policy
of such a power, he would reserve his opinion for a future oc-
casion. The question now was, how far the character and con-
duct of the present Government were affected. If the Go-
vernment had assumed to themselves a power not sanctioned by
usage, or contrary to law, then their conduct might be justifi-
ably censured or condemned. But with respect to the exercise
of a power which had been vested in the Executive, it was the
Parliament—it was you—the House of Commons—(said the
Right Hon. Baronet emphatically )—which conferred this power
—it was you who, with a full knowledge of its extent,
have recognised its continuance. —( Loud cries of "Hear, hear.")
It is you who have committed to usthis instrument for maintain-
ing and preserving the public peace.—( Hear, hear.) For leso
years that power had been possessed by the Executive Gover-
nment. Could they pretend ignorance—could they say that the
whole subject had not been brought under their consideration.
at different periods ? In 1735 it had been brought under the
notice of the House of Commons.—(Laughter from the Oppo-
sition.) Well, he would come down to later periods. Hon.
Gentlemen opposite should not pretend ignorance of the his-
tory of their own country.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) They might as well assail their predecessors, as
charge the Executive Government of this day with exer-
cising this power.--( Hear, hear.) The power had not
been vested in them without their knowledge and sanction.
In 1735 they expressly by their own resolution admitted that
there was no particular sanction that Members of the House of
Commons should be exempted from the operation of this
power ; for the resolution went on to say that the privilege en
the part of the Postmaster-General to open letters did not
extend to Members of that House, unless opened under a war-
rant.—( Hear, hear, from the Ministerialists.) That was their
own resolution ; so that in 1735 this power had been, at all
events, fully recognised by that House. This power had been
exercised by Secretaries of State remarkable for their know-
ledge of constitutional privileges, and for their defence of
civil liberty. But if Honourable Gentlemen thought that
the present House of Commons was ignorant of the acts of
their predecessors in 1735, why was not the act of the House of
Commons rescinded in a more formal and deliberate manner in
1537 ? Why, Sir, in 1e37 the House of Commons was party to
an Act of Parliament which did expressly recognize the exist-
ence of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. The
Hon. Gentleman seemed to doubt that Parliament had given
that power. He begged to refer him to the Act of Parliament
passed in 1837, in which he would find it expressly stated, in
reference to letters transmitted by post, that they Mould not he
opened in Great Britain except in obedience to an express war-
rant in writing, under the hand and seal of one of
her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State now in Ireland
were under the warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant. Was not
this a direct and express recognition ? If not, he must own he
did not know what recognition meant. Well, then, the Go-
vernment had the power, under the sanction of this House.
It had been held that the exercise of this power was necessary
for the maintenance of public tranquillity, fur the preservation
of external peace. This was one of the instruments which
Parliament had committed to their hands for the maintenance
of external tranquillity, and the preservation of internal peace,
and if they had allowed either to have been dis-
turbed,: from failure in the exercise of this power,
the Government would ustly have been blameable.
Hon. Members on that side of the House would, in that case,
have been the very first to call them into question for refusing
to exercise the power entrusted to them for that purpose.—
( Hear, hear.) It was very well at that time to condemn his
Right Hon. Friend for issuing these warrants in the month of
August, 1542, but he (Sir R. Peel) wished it were possible
to recal to the memory of Hon. Members the particulars of the
debate that took place in the House in that very month of
August, on the state of the country at the time. He recol-
lected, that in that debate the Hon. Member forWolverhanapton
rose in his place, on the question that, owing to the state of the
country, Parliament should not be prorogued. The
danger of civil commotion was forcibly dwelt on by the Hon.
Member, and he said it would be madness to permit Perlin-
ment to separate without taking some measures to call them to-
gether within a limited period. A motion was passed limiting
the period of remission from their duties, and Parliament was
again called together in a short time time after, because it was
supposed that such a course was absolutely necessary on ac-
count of the troubled state of the country. The Hon. Member
for Wolverhampton rose in the debate that took place in July,
at a period when an unusual number of warrants were issued,
and he read three letters from the neighbourhood of the place
he represented—from the Potteries. He read the whole of the
first letter dated July the 20th, and it described the state of the
country as most alarming ; it stated tbat a general feeling o f
discontent was engendered by designing men , that the col-
liers for ten miles around the town of Hanky, in bands of
a thousand men, roamed about with bludgeons, exciting
fear and terror among that portion of the people who
were really disposed to work. They dared not do
so, and the destitution of their poor families was
in consequence more intolerable every hour. The first open
exhibition of violence, the letter stated, had broken out one
day last week, and continued for the three following days.
The colliers were obliging all individuals in that part of the
country to drop work, and where resistance was attempted by
the managers, they were treated in the roughest manner. An-
other of the letters sent stated that ten thousand paupers of all
trades were out in one week, and that the number would be
increased to twenty thousand. It added that the country was com-
pletely armed, and the writer said that having twenty or thirty
servants, he thought he should be able to protect himself.
These were evidences of the state of the country in 1842, and
they were given to the House as warnings not to pro-
rogue Parliament at that period. The Hon. Member
for Manchester implored the Government to give their best
consideration to the disturbed state of the manufacturing dis-
tricts, as the evils which were paramount there, unless checked
in time, would involve the country in one common ruin. Then
followed the Hon. Member for Stockport, who indignantly de-
nied that the language used by himself, or those with whom he
acted, could be understood as giving rise to these disorders.
He asked the House to consider the condition of the manufac-
turing districts, and to make some inquiries to mitigate the dis-
tresses which prevailed. That was the language used by
lion. Members in the month of August, 1842, and yet Mi-
nisters asked for no extraordinary powers to repress the spirit
of disorder which prevailed over the country. Had they neg-
lected to maintain the public peace which the House of Com-
mons had intrusted to them ? Had they left the manufacturingous
interest to the mercy of the thousands and tens
stateo of of
t
of tumultuous persons, who were wandering
in
n
powers idle-
ness
i which
n those
the la districts?w gave, llf t thhe Hon. Members on the oppo.ey had neglecteda the ii
ordinary
in a more
for this [remissness, and to fin.
on. He (Sir R.
site side would have been
find
fault
. lvery . r firstzh,oo tuirt.ot
vhienbgla veryme poorer
painful than the possession of a
energeticfor
which
eerxee rncoiswe d c
ai
inl e suchd in gal s t i
Peel) knew nothing mored .
Heer,
in
If
power o
that in this free
for the maintenance of the peace of the
of this nature, an with. regard to the duties that de-
volved upon them
only
had reason
were,connected with others
country, he could . say that in his experience
fodrutiniesst.a—nc(e,
banded together, or
they
most
to
believe,palnful
to the injury of another country, then the painful consideration
country
yntry
would weigh with them whether they ought to avail themselves
of that power, and so give information of those machinations to
that foreign country in which it would not be a breach of faith
to examine the correspondence of private individuals if the •
foresaw that the probability of disturbances in
those ' countriesy
would have a tendency to produce a general war—and if by this
means they should repress disorders
the interests of two countries, then that original difficulty—the
using of that power—would be greatly increased, and it might
be a question how far they might be justified in availing them-
selves
of that privilege. Was it to be expected that, in such , a case, they should neglect to use the ordinary precautions
which their predecessors had done ? Certainly not. And was it
fair, was it just, that they should he the first Ministry to
bear the brunt of popular indignation, of popu-
lar feeling ? A Committee had been appointed, and
on that Committee there was a majority of their political
opponents. Before it they had stated every fact with regard
to the exercise of that power. Their predecessors in office had
done the same. They had to choose between the opening the
letters of individuals free from blame and the passing over
matters that concerned the welfare of mighty countries. They
had been informed last year that the life of the Emperor of
Russia was in danger. Would Hon. Gentlemen have neg-
lected
due precaution in such a case? They examined into
the accuracy of that information, and if any of the 119-
nourable Gentlemen who impugned the conduct
_of the
Secretary of State in the exercise of this power hacle?filied
loutill:
a
same high office, would not he have done the
no re
sinis try ? The
not such a course have been adopted by any Ministry
which would e
Ministry were justified in neglectingmeans
s
tend to secure the external and inrterpal peace of the country.
But it had been said that h
Majesty -'s Government had i .
some suspicion existed of their hay- '
ing perverted it to the
base
murp..e.
of
sseop
political expediency.
Well
d all the facts before it, as reported by
the Committee, and
Well, now, the House
hanglooki at the constitution of that Con.