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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING-, FEBATJARY 19 1845.

that charge, many people thought it was imaginary. But what
did they find in the report? The Committee of the House of
Commons stated that they believed formerly such a practice
prevailed in the time e.fMr. Charles James Fox and Lord Car-
Marthen, but the practice of opening diplomatic correspondence
had for some time past been discontinued.—(The lion. Gen-
tleman here read the extract at length, but. in a very rapid
time.) But from the Lords' report it appeared that this
phrase of " discontinued for some time " meant only disconti-
. nurd since the preceding month of June. (He then read
the paragraeh from the Lords' report.) He asked the
Route to set the statements of the two Committees one
against the other. The statement of the Commons was a most
disingenuous ( Hear.) He would say that the prac-
tice was most disgraceful, and injurious to the reputation of
Britain among other naeions.—( Hear.) If Hon. Mem-
bers would takne the trouble to read what t ok place in respect
to the Venetian Ambassador in the year 1641, they would see
in what way the clia- acter of the country was damaged by
loch treachery. The
would find it recoided in the Journals of
the /louse Lorde— The lion. Gentleman then read a letter
addressed in that year to the House of Lords, cemplaining that
the writer's letters had been opened in the Foreign-office, and
that when he remonstrated with the Foreign Secretary,
the latter assured him that it had been done by
Mistake. He was satisfied, trusting in the honour of the
Court of England; but he fulled that the treachery was re-
teatedr and he prayed the House, fer the character of the
'own and people of England, to interpee e and prevent the re-
irtition of •• so damnable and disgraceful a system." The
polite of Lords sent a deputation of Peers to apologise, and
1° asorre the Ambassador that the practice should be discon.
-tinned ; but he refused to accept any amends until an Extraor-
alinary Ambassador should be sent to the Mats of Venice to
4Pologise, and he himself should have received an order on
tThe Postmaster-General to send his correspondence direct and
opdesntse the recommendation of the House cif
things were done, and the humiliating affair ter-
*sated.] He should not wonder if all the Stales with which
Ulcountry had relations, should require a similar apology.—
tear, and a laugh.) He came now to the charge which he
ad made respecting the opening of lett, rain the north of Eng-
a
d• The Committee denied that there had been a roving
heotoinission appointed to open letters in that part of the coon-
-7e but what were their own statements? They said that they
hand that in 1849, when there was a violent outbreak in the
hoar lerk frem- the Post-office was sent down on a war-
?tam the Secretary of St et, with authority to open the let.
to °f 'ix iersoto, and, at the same t me, another clerk was sent
rinuanr mnatkiline,;etters of ten others, and afterwards, of one endive
in ad seventeen. [He reed from the report.] He
'contended that there was no precedent for this conduct. It
eras absolutely illegal.—( Hear, hear.) Who could tell
"shelthere this opening of letters ended ?—( Hear, hear.)
tt"' Commissioners were not to open any ,her letters than
°se described in the warrant—it was rather a vague order:
lal.isiThoiee.y:ereare to open the letters of six parties named therein.
did that mean the letters addressed to these individuals
written by them? He supposed it meant both.
were they to ascertain that a particur leer was in th
taheiwriting of a certain individual? There was a great simi•e
be in handwritings, and the superscriptions of letters might
ee attributed to persons who really did not write them. They
ght say Mr. So and So wrote this letter," but how were
la ndwr
they to prove it? They could not do it positively by the
iting. Then he wished to know what directions were
given to the Commissioners to enable them to conclude
what letters were written by either of these six individuals?
Btit he wanted to know whether there was any precedent for
this warrant ? He believed it was entirely invented by the
Right Hon. Baronet. The same sort of thing appeared to have
been issued in August, 1843, directing a commission to inspect
tile letters of one person, and this was the only precedent be
(Mx. Duncombe) could fled. Besides, it was a most dangerous
power to entrust to individuals ; and it was anything but proper
for the Government to have sent them down in this way.
They aught then to have some further explanation on the sub-
ject. In another part of the report the Committee appeared
to deal with a statement that the entire mail-bags containing
letters were sent to the Home-office for examination. He
Meer made such a statement—he never said the mail-bags had
been opened at the Home-office ; but he did state, and he was
!hose bags
w o
as f the 13
Prepared to prove, that certain mail-bags were opened for the
4)
Post-office. It was suspected that some dis-
!hl going on, and for the purpose of tracing it out
ose bags were opened. He never stated that mail-bags of
lthe etters had been sent to the Home-office for inseeetion ; and if
Committee had answered the charges he did make, it would
ive been much better than answering charges which had
tfaverritbizt heard by any one. It would appear that if a letter
,ring4h a particular post-mark, and written in a certain st3le
were dropped into the Post .offiee, it was imme•
'al rely dispatched to the Secretary of State for the Home De-
tesajtment. Now, he wished to know how they were to ascer-
a7 this fact ? Many letters bore the same post-mark, and to
aPPearances were directed by the same hand. Of course,
1",,!_• ced in this difficulty, they often opened leters which they
hunt/fined had been 'written by one individual, and discovered
tatdoubt to their astonishment—(Laughter)—that it con-
ektmld a private communication from another.— (Laughter.)
eeemeein this way they everybody's letters till they
11v dat the one they anted.— (Hear, hear.) Now, he
tweTed the Government to show him any precedent to justify
in all the annals of letter opening.—( Hear, hear, and
4
ehoPsulilt
d) He said it was of the greatest importance that they
sltubt, have an explanation upon this subject. Instead of
ee,e,'°g what the Duke of Newcastle did one hundred years
,„latius the
Committee ought to have given a copy of the war-
the is: sued by the Right Hon. Baronet. He came now to
out
se7t charge upon this point. He thought he stated in the
letter— that his correspondence had been violated—that his
**ere liad been opened. Now, upon this the Committee
telSrfectly decided. In his place in that Hciuse, he eon-
lerailt..in the first instance that he had only been informed
redsletters coming through the Admiralty had been
heliev Ile admitted that at the time he was inclined to dis.
this lie it. But although the Committee had decided upon
e could nevertheless prove that his letters were detained
Ititht°sPected at the Post-office, upon the authority of the
lie
ation. Baronet.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Now,
tsifte t 1"t say that he felt degraded in this
kty eh he ;bought it was a degradation for
t6k, r of the House of Commons—(Loud cheering)
eTtse Ruiltheotivas a worthy object of suspicion—that he had
tight e some offence which. the Secretary of State
tstid entitled him to open his private correspondence. He
Be eauti t conceive a greater personal insult than this.
eteeree.,:: not conceive a greater insult to the constituency he
74ro.o.,..t,h1;e'rlefie was not the representat ire of merely a rotten
wilt (Loud cheers)—but of a very large and numerous,
sait, as an intelligent constituency.—(Hear, hear.) He
tseprroets itatet itthwasnostt. merely an insult to him, but it was
c tu encv which tie had the honour to
fureht that Heonussel.—( Hear, hear.) lie would go
• fi2tr. If his correspondence was not to be frleue,thhee was not
thee rePresentative of them.— (Cheers.)
tiohees°afbi his constituency he
.called upon the Right
iv,. ie Baronet to 'ustifv, ne could do se, the
-6
0 his letters. Hje knew not what story he might
iltellerated u. p in the Committee off
Lords, but
Housebut ohfeCos
(lint uttnittee of the House o
h:n• Baronetowed it to him and to that House.—
rf!aidniothees
Oud
i' the—era.) H iit to him and to his constituency to
let, e owes.,
were_ „ahe the House. the justification for opening his
eteatet,torste asked the Right Hort, Paronet, before. he orms
Be the fact if the information he received was true
(111... /7, hear. ) The Right lion. Baronet
stlnc°Mbe) knew he was putting a questiSht which he
replied that he
tsr.) P, Hon. Baronet) could not anavver.-4 Hear,
be Itight ht„elle then, how stood the question between
Member of
le" let latnure had, in the exercise of his public duty, opened
tt the rt of a Member of that House, and now they found
Isl•rate th7cretary of State, while he had the baseness to per-
lo)m
eilact, bad Lot the morel courage to acknowledge rt.
(e",, refise'.!ers•) He maintained that this was a degrade-
sictes of 'nlC not only upon himself, but upon the House.—
"Mr see Order, order," " Chair, chair," in the midst of
it'ese istiton. Member resumed his seat.)
eerd ex„ UEB. informed the Hon. Member that he had
°fa ete'reaston wbich reflected upon the individual charac-
ittle burnber ot that House.
rtkht NCONH3E said he applied the observation to the
roitsisn°'• Baronet in his Ministerial capacity, and to this ob-
ti:il'ad to e !uuld adhere.—(Cheers.) Another complaint
44: 'abjecwas, that the Committee had n t referred to
theehthees . maketheir report. He had made the same charge be-
-ea; j° the room up stairs, when 'he was called before
"at but
still th
ells th . ey were entirely silent upon this poipt. Now
nett e inference to be drawn from this The inference
she there rate pts_ Was nothing in his correspondence to justify the
tee"' which ,!*(1 by the Pest-office gentlemen. The same jus-
rertt "ad been rendered to the Right Hon. Baronet, had
eisndicate t°Nothing was mentioned in the report to
ees Ito before the House of Commons, and hence a
heat "'after
le, • Kr
h_was plectra in the hands of the Right Hon. Ba-
ttle' for th Placed in this difficulty—he had been sa
te_. Was °Purpose of screenine the Right Hon. Baronet, and
-4"‘itutee.ari atedditional reason why another inquiry should be
Ishii' chi re 1-1° celled for that inquiry in vindication of his
d tette °ter. Welt
teith ?nest then, the
.Committee ended their report in
she e toes,. a sort of summing up; but they altogether eve-
thlitilet he 'I'M whether they would recommend that this power
e Nue, abolished at all. And if any gentleman had taken
ale we to r
teeth In, eke
anytielaindg tehfeitc,ohneOwudaisng part of the rep:et, and
sure it was more than the
lie•ch'etttee
eterhs mosel, could do themselves —(Laerehter.) Some allu-
re sIY to !r was made in the report: tolreL'lnel) but this was
eat. Implicate the Govern.
of the present.
tele!, -nut Lo Gove.
of ptry for 6 rd Normanhy, who had presided over `hat
Department,itrietve Years, stated in his place in the other House
o that never while he presided over the Home
el:and, earl !bis country, or held the Lord-Lieutenancy of
nth •t
Neu tarn a single warrant for pelitical purposes.
arks 91e ere "'lobe) had seldom an opuertunity of agreeing
111,4 4/g jiie':ftn,of the Government, commonly called the
tide 'Per, House must, in justice to the editor of
Lord d to cieeeo a
insead to the what he (Mr. Duncombe) con-
eruertfnecer•er.ecoedflitet article upon this subject. The article
sir°nglleiboa charge which had-_ibeenmade against
Itible geniandea topening the letters of
Ir. O'Connell, and
"let if he
to dish_ an opportunity should be given to the
%Ca fie char 1 rove the charge. The article went on to state
1 °trete e• ge.w ere true, the then Governmen t had been guilty
ttts,k;s
or be of th •
,econstit ut ion of tee country. Now,h!s
lei, _le for • -'1" °Pened
• sesn't• It was a and the Government were responsible_
. lame was breach of privilege to open the letters
'satire See,eta" without an especial warrant from the
e,tlR exe,a re of State; and this justified him in de.
ariet;,,,,ght Hon._riation from the Right. Hon. Baronet. If
tLd he
to
Opeetneadronbeist
lleiatdternsothaisdsuee' tee warrant, the indi-
`"•!%e t °llid loft teal 0 dsc,certain]y summon theminked
thehis bparriovifletghee,
lie;riee ridesten'°,..se their ' authority. In the absence of any re-
plitisetit:ryt
etimoz etteis:Y:ehe Secret Committee, it was left for Par-
14heehis, Part u whether this power should be continued.
Nth )'t°RetherQrillne twee convinced it ought te be abo-
( (Bear, hear)—and if the House agreed
trereY that tZePt hoe
elleatt_l(l be
.no necessity
.for further
llev.T. on msTtli d have two points.
.But still it. was rieces-
the nht e, subject,
foer another inquiry, and a conclusive
the House would remember that
loe:9_th. Lord the Admiralty (Lord Haddingtorr) stated, on
tltileslsati'esyhte4,Zed'rniatissttylar, that it. was a power which had
er overt ways exist in any country where there
wee °Quid be ittent at all, es-
:vr. th no • he Noble Lord added, that
:eit,ittl.ositesi,,Gaisvepdi4feeEinerdnment unless they were entrusted
maintained. that the Government
1:34- tY ‘raltt•—l nosiest wer did not exist. He said, no
,Go-
14114in' tngtesd
ne Gapednment—required this power. fhe
ileenedeurero
esufeEhnpgtrantede'aiannd.aesftlit.ise;gliainhdmehne
a...4''Opdeeed4titnapt the
eoetaett,sr, heah.') anpd u.neep.e
71,4es:44;toltetrees:seadss;i0a.h.nnite,erhriitati:ocal repeal of this odious power.
mg these views he had been in-
PET dire attention 'of the Hous,e than
the ick
appointed, to
ietint.oliitee bee a d conclude by moving,. That
detained,
etestan or at any Prohvincial post-otfice, t(re 'rs have beer!
Tatli:kh
listsys,etidsta2tiantidyersetees inquire into the mode
-eoptefineeed, aanncidalrseo-
esvery warrant for that purpose has
sinatloedthaet
of. state, from the Ist day of
presentar} time ; the said Committee to
it Pic" their `t;'. ,tot he
Pluiun thereon to the House, and also whether
* the p
lit
re M.
""'" that
lion vPort And ev. the practice should be continued :—That
re :,and
'dance the Secret Committee of last ses-
Taeost-office be referred to the said Com-
Sir quest',
steel,me lkts.ing been put b •
. L4h GRA: A
.the SPEAKER,
thoep ° thought ea. as said, when the matter was first
time that
t,ialadsteit ehsess consistent with his public duty that
e the
._ noes efTsnihreseetosrs the manner in which he ex-
~gtiiryr was ti. ma:e. tfeet let intimated at the same
and it
was
the pleasure
.ef thit 4oysi.-: to institute an
LI" Pleasure pf his 'S9sereiy' 'rtleafe him
• • a • ••

from the office he then held, he should be quite willing to make
a full disclosure of all the circumstances connected with the
case which the Hon. Member had brought before the House.
The House, however, after going minutely into the details, de-
termined that a Secret Committee was the proper tribunal for
investigating a case of this description. The Hon. Gentle-
man, in the course of his speech, had thought fit to scandalise
the latter part of the report of the Secret Committee, and he
thought, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him
to call to the recollection of the House arid the country, the
way in which that Committee was first proposed; and here,he
would take leave to remark, that it was impossible to find gen-
tlemen niece entitled to the confidence of that House and of
the country, than the nine Members who constituted that Cern-
' mince. He bad often feared that a very large share of per-
sonal aversien had entered into this discussion ; and yet, on
the part of the Government and himself, he did ant hesitate
for a moment to nominate upon the Committee a decided ma-
jority of his political opponents. The nine Members se-
lected by the House, on that occasion, were I. ord
Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Thus. Baring. Sir
Heatheote, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt,
the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Hawes. Now, the Committee so
constituted proceeded to investigate the entire subject matter
now brought under discussion for the second time by the Hon.
Gentleman. He had promised that if such a Committee were
appointed the whole of the circumstances, so far as he was ac-
quaint. d with them, should be candidly laid before them lie
thought he saw in the House at that moment at least a ma-
jority of that Committee, and he would state upon his honour,
in his place in Parliament, that every minute detail, without
exception and without reservation, that was within his know-
ledge, was not extracted from him by cross-examination, but
voluntarily tendered by him to the Committee.—( Cheers. )
He osserted that lie had voluntarily tendered to the Committee,
w e;tout reserve, all the information which he possessed on the
subject. There was not a point now brought under discussion
by the Hen. Gentleman which was not the subject matter
of his ( Sir James Graham's) evidence bef.me that Corn-
mittee.—(Hear, hear.) He had kept back nothing, he had
concealed nothing. If his conduct was base and moan, that
coirduct had been hi ought under their judgment, and they had
acquitted him of baseness and meanness. —(Cheers. ) He had
at least had the courage before the Committee to make a full
disclosure of the whole of his conduct. Charges of want of
credit were easily made; and if it was consistent with the
dignity of that House to have such charges banded about, it was
a matter of the greatest indifference to him, after his conduct
had b'en sehmittml to the judgment of the nine gentlemen
who composed the Committee. fie was acquitted as a gentle-
men and a Nlinister, and he cared not a rush what might be the
opinion of the Hon. Member for Finsbery.—(Cheers. ) Now,
the Hon. Gentleman said that the report of that Committee
was unsatisfactory and evasive. It was not his duty, being
the party accused, to enter into any defence of that report. 'there
were, however, upon that Committee some of the most experi-
enced, the most learned, and the most honourable 'Members of
that House. He was quite persuaded that it was not their inten-
tion to avoid any portion of the subject matter committed to
them. They were incapable of wilfully deluding that House.
He believed that House had investigated the matter with
fidelity and care ; and he was satisfied, from his knowledge of
their character, that they had conveyed to the House the exact
impression produced on their minds by the evidence adduced.
Now the Hon. Gentleman charged the Committee with dis-
obedience to the order of the House. He fancied, because a
particular expression was used, that they did not trace each
warrant from the period of its being issued to that of its being
carried into effect ; and, therefore, he argued, they had dis-
obeyed the ,order of the House on the subject. He (Sir J.
Graham) was confident that everything which related to the
office which he Clef', in connexion with the issuing of the
warrants, had been carefully investigated. The House roust
recollect that he was not the only witness who had been
called before the Committee. Every statement made by hitnself
was contrasted with those made by the officers of other depart-
ments, whose statements, if his were inaccurate, must have been
at variance with it. The Postmaster-General, the Secretary
of the Post-office, and all the officers connected with that de-
partment, a ere carefully examined as witnesses. So far from
the orders of the House being disobeyed, he was quite satisfied
that with regard to the issuing of the warrant, and in every
other respect, they had been carefully attended to and minutely
observed. But the Hon. Gentleman said that iii his case there
had been unusual frequency in the exercise of the powers vested
in the Secretary of State. He conceived that this portion of
misconduct imputed to him was one of the most important mat-
ters submitted to the judgment of the tribunal appointed to in-
vestigate the subject ; and he would read to the House
the recorded judgment of that tribunal in reference
to this very point of undue and comparative frequency of
the exercise of author i y. The opinion of the Committee was
given at page 15. The Right Honourable Baronet then read
an extract from the report, stating that the warrants had been
issued with nearly equal frequency by the several Administra-
tions since 1799; though in certain years, in consequence of
maternal comtrotions, it had appeared that the number of war-
rants issued by the Secretaries of State was unusually great,
while in otheis, for a contrary reason, it was exceedingly
small. Then, again, at page 19, it was stated with respect to
wart ants, not of a criminal but of a political character, there had
not, upon an average, been more than four yearly ; while the
greatest number ever issued in one year for such cases was 16.
Now, he had hitherto referred only to the report of the Com-
mittee of that House; but the House must remember that a
Committee had also been appointed by the House of Lords. In
the House of Commons, so highly was the honour of its Mem-
bers estimated, that the declaration of a Member was held
equivalent to his cath ; but in the other House of Parliament
he had been examined upon oath, and there, also, witnesses
were called who might have contradicted his statements. Fur-
ther, the Committee of the House of Lords, by. the advice of
the Government, contained a majority of their political oppo-
nents. It had been said that there was no eminent lawyer, no
person who was used to the examination of witnesses. Now,
was that the fact? Were there no experienced and eminent
lawyers on that Committee? Why, it so happened, that on
that Committee sat two of the most distinguished lawyers now
living in this country—( Hear, hear )—bothof whom had held
the Great Seal, and had been at the head of their profession.
Upon this Committee were Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham,
Lord Auckland, Lord Colchester, the Bishop of London, Lord
Somers, and Lord Colborne. The question, whether there had
been an improper exercise of the authority, was brought before
that body, and this was the judgment of the Lords' Committee:—
" We are bound, in conclusion, to state that, having looked back
to the proceedings of several Secretaries of State durisig successive
administrations tor more than twenty years, we have found the
practice nearly uniform. The power has been very sparingly
exercised, and never from personal or party motives." hag
was a negative to the charge of baseness and meanness which
had been brought against him—(Cheers)—never from per-
sonal and party motives; " and that in every case it seems to
have been directed by an earnest and faithful desire to adopt
that course which appeared to be necessary, either to promote
the ends of justice or to prevent the disturbance of the public
tranquillity, er otherwise to promote the best interests of she
country." That was the recorded judgment of the house of
Lords. Now, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to advert to a
paragraph which had recently appeared in the newspapers, that
the Secret-office, as it was termed, in the Post-office, had been
suppressed by order of the Home-office. Notwithstanding the
intimate knowledge which the Hon. Gentleman possessed of
this subject, he seemed to have fallen into error in contra_
distinguishing that office in connexion with the Foreign-office,
from a secret office in connexion with the secret office of the
Post-office. With respect to that establishment, it would
appear, from page 17, that it was conducted by officers ap-
pointed and paid by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
from whom the orders were received, and to whom alone
theye were responsible. Such an office had existed in this
country, 41 connexion with the Foreign Department, for more
than a century. Its existence was no new intelligence ; it ex-
isted in 1840; and no step had been taken which showed
the disapprobation of Parliament. For a long time
it had existed, not in immediate connexion with
the Post-office, though under the roof of that
establishment. He would now state that, not by an
order from the Home-office, but by an order from the Foreign
Department (as we understood the Right Hon. Baronet), it
had been removed from the Post-office, and no longer existed.
The Hon. Gentleman, in referring to the case of M. Mazzini,
had thought it consistent with his public duty to declare his
belief that the warrant presented to the Committee of both
Houses of Parliament for the opening of the letters of M.
Alazzini was fabricated by him for the occasion. No other
ground for that harsh construction, which the lion. Member
was now disposed to put on every act of his (Sir J. Graham's)
—( Hear, hear)—no other ground was adduced, except
that certain general terms were used in the report of
the House of Lords, which he thought were at variance
with the date of the warrant. The words used were
that the warrant was in force for about four months ; whilst
the Committee of the House of Commons stated that the war-
ra d was issued on the I st of March, and revoked on the 3d of
June. He solemnly declared that the warrant was issued by
him on the Ist of March, and revoked on the 3d of June; the
original warrant having, he believed, been issued for four
months. He must beg to call the attention of the House to
that portion of the report which set forth the important circum-
stance, that new checks had been introduced in modern times
with respect to the issuing of the warrant. In the first place,
since the year 182:4 all the originaliwarrants had been recorded
in the Post-office. In ISO 6 regulations were made, impoiing
most essential and material checks upon the issue of
these warrants. It was not possible now for the Secre-
tary of State, unknown to others, to issue a weren't of
this description. Both the Under-Secretaries of State, and
a confidential clerk at the Post-office, were cognisant of every
matter of this description.—( Hear, hear.) So much for the
fabrication of the warrant, and the assignment to it of a false
date
and it was impossible that he could have committed the
,
base a• intien act attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman,
without its being ..
hnow.n to the two Under- Secretaries of State,
and to a confidential
-lc. who, although a clerk, was a gen-
-
tleinan in every sense of the wo. -a. and as incapable of a base
itel false act of this description, as any f the Hon. Members
to whom he was then speaking.—( Hear, hear, and•cheers.)
est He would now pass to another accusation, which had bee.. .
. ore -
ferred by the Hon. Gentleman against a Noble colleague Os
his, upon whose honour and worth he had thought fit to
cast imputations—he referred to the Earl of Aberdeen.
Now, he was bound to stater that the accusation was made in
round terms, and certainly in the most harsh and offensive
manner, but when he came to hear the grounds of the assertion
it appeared to be altogether vague. The assertion was that
the declaration made by Lord Aberdeen, in his place in the
House of Lords, was at variance with the report of the two
Houses of Parliament upon a most important fact—viz., whe-
ther NI. Nlazzini's correspondence was intercepted, and was
communicated to a foreign Minister. Load Aberdeen, in his
place in Parliament, gave the most solemn denial to that asser-
tion. Now, let the House hear what the Commons said on
this point. The report maid—" Such information deduced
from those letters as appeared to the British Minister calculated
to involve dangerous consequences, was communicated to a
Foreign Power; but the information so communicated was not
of a nature to compromise, and did not compromise, the safety
of any individual within the reach of that Foreign Power, nor
was it made known to that Power by what means or from
what source that information had been gained." That was the
report of the Secret Committee. What was the statement of
the House of Lords on this subject? It said, " Certain parts
of the information thus obtained were communicated to a Fo-
reign Government, in so far a; su h communication appeared
to be warranted, and without names or details that might ex-
pose any individual then residing in a foreign country to dan-
ger." That was the opinion of Lord Cottenham, after all the
transactions had been fully developed. (Mr. Duncembe here
made some observations across the table, which we did not
hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman deny the
accuracy of that report ? He had himself quoted that
report when he made the accusation, and was he
( Sir J. Graham) to be prevented from quoting the same re-
port, when the honour of a amble individual was assailed ?
(Cheers.) He thought ho certainly might refer to the de-
cision; of that noble individual's Peers, the majority of whom
were his political opponents, in vindication of his honour.—
(Cheers.) He could not suppose that the House
would think that his Noble Friend the Secretary for
Foreign. Affairs would deliberately, in . his place in
Parliament, make a declaration inconsistent with the
truth, knowing as he did that the statement would be tested by
an examination before Committees of both Houses of Peelle,
ment.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he ( Sir James Graham) per-
haps might be permitted to state an opinion, which he strongly
entertained, that with reference to this particular power—that
odious, that invidious and obnoxious power vested in the Se-
cretary of State, by. warrant—he might.be permitted to
state that for dornestm purposes it was generally inoperative,
and the exercise of it on many accounts objectionable. With res-
pect to our foreign relations this power stood on different grounds.
The House must remember that in this country (he thought-
he said it advisedly, the only country in Europe, whatever

might be the danger to public interest from the presence of any
foreigner)—the Executive Government had no power vested
in them by law of averting that danger by removing a person
found abusing our hospitality. In the case to which reference
had been made, the facts were stated pretty fully in the report
of the Commons, at page 14. From the correspondence whiele
had been intercepted it appeared that it was intended that a
descent should be made on the coast of Italy for the purpose of
excitiag internal disturbance in that country. That there was
danger was not imaginary, but real. It was formidable, for if
it had been carried into successful execution, it was not to be
dissembled the peace of Italy would certainly have been dis-
' turbed, and he believed that the peace of Europe, under those
circumstances, could not have been preserved; if an Euro.
peen war ensued, England could not have remained a mere
spectator of the quarrel. it was said that a descent
on the coast of Calabria was contemplated, and that
an unfair use was made of the information gained in
that instance, and that a trap was laid for the cer-
respondence of M. Mazzini. Now, he absolutely and entirely
denied the facts upon which this assumption was grounded.
The Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, with great
harshness said that the blood of the persons who were exe-
cuted on the melancholy occasion to which he referred mast
be on the heads of persons in this country. He (Sir James
Graham) denied in the most solemn manner that any trap had
been laid for the individuals in question. In the first place,
no descent on the coast of Calabria was expected. The con-
spirators abusing the hospitality of the British Government at
Corfu, concocted their plans there. It was not true that the
point of their destination was believed to be the coast of Ca-
labria. No information whatever had been given by the Bri-
tish Government to the Neapolitan Government oa the sub-
ject.- And so far from the Neapolitan Government having
prepared troops for the reception of those persons who
had been led into a trap, as had been al-
leged, those persons landed without meeting any troops.
They were arrested not by troops, but by a body similar to the
posse coraitztus in this country. It was not until the lapse of
a considerable time, during which the troops had to be sent
from a distant point by a steam-boat, that the troops of the Nea-
politan Government came into contect with those persons. He
understood that only:one of those persons was a Neapolitan, all
the other parties came from the leathern parts of Italy, and had
no connexion whatever with the king-done of NaFles. He cer-
tainly could state with confidence that what was stated in the
report was true, that all information received through the
Post. offiee was transmitted unread to the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs. It was the solemn assertion of the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs that he never transmitted to
any foreign Government any document, hut that he only "gave
the substance of the information."—(lronical cheers.) He
was now frankly avowing what had beer. done. His Noble
Friend endeavoured by giving th,t infermatiim to check a dan-
gerous movement, but he had done nothing calculated to
compromise the life of any individual.—( Hear, hear.)
The Hoe. Gentleman had referred to a Pole of the name of
Graliski, and said that information had been given to a fo-
reign Poser with reference to Polish movements—informa-
tion which might have compromised the safety of innocent per-
sons resident in Poland. Again t this Graliski a warrant was
issued, and certainly he (Sir James Graham) was bound to
state, upon his own responsibility, that he ism ei that warrant
under circumstances which, if presented again for his con-
sideration, would lead him to take the step which he had
taken on that occasion. The Hon. Gentleman, referring to
an expression in the report, intimated that he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) had issued general warrants. Now, he could only say
that he had never issued a warrant of that description—a
warrant without the name of the party being set forth. He
could say confidently, that on no one occasion had he issued
anything approaching to a general warrant. He thought he
tpismishniateoiefia:nuirprlefstemouettew.laavtrsettow, with propriety, drop for the present this most
eyuiror,brn:
so: subject.
teoe:
since
altdt‘bialy:
eleibt:ueht
reaesorht eitbuegi sott pneaneidonhcwi
fedtaad(tQlso,nt
Queen
ehtwoehateeeinnsnr.
bet pAgheotiianhiwvteneeevy
;ire beinghi
thateh w vestedaasn before
e fo irne
tt
hh furtheree
?pt
or etTphahereeyd Secretaryctoourledvonkoo revoke
require further information on the subject. Everything that
inquiry could give was now before them. If it should be found
necessary for the 'public safety to limit this power, the proper
coarse would be to repeal the statute, to pass another, and im-
pose the necessary checks. But if it had to be exercised by
:he Secretary of State it was impossible for that individual
faithfully, fearlessly, and honestly, for the public, to exercise
the powers entrusted to him by his Sovereign, and not by the
Sovereign without the confidence of that House, for without
the confidence of that House no Sovereign could maintain a
Minister for a single day. He said, that if it was for the good
of the public that the Secretary of State was to be trusted with
the exercise of those powers, it was incompatible with the
honest, fearless, and advantageous exercise of those powers,
that he should be calla upon to declare publicly what were
the reasons and what were the circumstances which had led him
to exercise them.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SHEIL then rose and addressed the House as follows :
—sir, in what I have to address to the House I shall be very
short, and I hope very temperate. The Right Hon. Gentle-
, man has unequivocally admitted that the letters which were
addressed to M. Mazzini were opened, and the substance of the
information contained in those letters communicated to a foreign
power. The report says so, and the evidence of the Right Hon.
Gentleman is almost more than confirmatory of the report.
The Right Hon. Gentleman justified that proceeding. This is
not the time to consider whether that proceeding was right or
not. That question was not raised. My Hon. Friend will
have an opportunity of raising that question by bringing the
subject before the House and the country upon another and
more fitting occasion. But thus stands the broad fact—the let-
ters of M. Mazzini were opened, and those letters regularly
conveyed to him after being opened, himself being unaware
that the correspondence was disclosed. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man says no trap was laid It would have been as well, then, to
have informed M. Mazzini that his letters had been opened.
The power was exercised by the Right Hon. Gentleman at
the Post-office, and certainly the substance of the information
thus obtained was communicated to a foreign power. The
Committee state—" The facts of the case, as far as the Com-
mittee feel at Ithet ty to disclose them, appear as follows." It
appears, therefore, that there were facts which the Committee
did not think themselves at liberty to disclose. Ido not mean
to say that a Committee of Secrecy, appointed under such pe-
culiar circumstances, was not justified in exercising this discre-
tion ; but. it is clear that the whole is not known, there is no
suppressio fuell, but suppressio veri is admitted. It is re-
markable tnat this passage occurs in the report of the Com-
mittee—" They think it most desirable to make known that
the above three warrants are the only warrants to open letters
which the present Government had issued." That question
was not referred to them. The Committee gratuitously state
that these three ate the only instances in which the present
Government have exercised this power. The powers exercised
by, other Governments had nothing to do with the question.
Upon this part of the case—fulfilling the engagement—to he very
brief, I may say, that it is still more objectionable. The Com-
mittee state the names of persons who are no longer living in
reference to warrants of this kind which have been issued.
They then proceed to state that they will not mention the
names of any living individuals, with certain exceptions. The
passage runs thus :—" Your ommittee abstained from giving
particular information concerning any warrant, and from
naming a single individual whose letters were directed to be
opened ; but they have been induced, with respect to the mode
of executing certain warrants, to mention the names of parties
included in them, inasmuch as they are connected with the
circumstances which mainly led to the inquiry your Committee
were appointed to enter into." They accordingly proceed to
mention the names of two Poles, and I think al. Mazzini.
Now, I want to know why it is that nothing has been said
about the letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—(Loud
cheers)—it that Committee have adhered practically to the
rules they themselves laid down ?—( Hear, hear.) The names
of two Poles were mentioned, the name of M. Mazzini was
mentioned. Were those the only names specifically men-
tioned in the House of Commons ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Member for Finsbury, the representative of a great section of
this metropolis—( Hear, hear)—boldly stated in the House of
Commons that his privileges as a Member of Parliament were
violated—( Loud cheers)—and that his letters had been opened.
—(Cheers.) There was a statement as distinctly specified as
that made with regard to Mazzini. The name was mentioned.
Why is it that the Committee said nothing of Mr. Duncombe ?
—( Loud cheers ) The statement was repeated before the
Committee. You excluded Mr. Duncombe who brought the
charge.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Duncombe offered to appear
before the Committee to corroborate the charge, to prove the
accusation—the Committee refused to allow him to conduct
the case, or, I believe, to hear him.—( Hear, hear.) Under
those circumstances it ie a matter of legitimate curiosity to
know what justification there is on the part of the Com-
mittee for omitting all mention of the lion. Member for
Finsbury —(Loud cheers.) How stands the fact ? When the
Right Hon. Gentleman was first interrogated on the subject,
he refused to give an answer—( Hear, hear)—he
sheltered himself behind official prerogative.—( Cheers. )
When public clamour arose the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Government, who observed how
uneasy was the beating of the public pulse, came down to the
House and said that a Committee would be conceded—that
which in the first instance was withheld.—(Hear, hear.) A
Committee was granted—" a great fact "—but the fact, of all
others the most important,—the opening of the letters of a
Member of Parliament—was not mentioned —( Hear, hear.)
I now ask this question of you—(Cheers)--Tell me, y.hy (turn-
ing to Sir J. Graham), who answer for Mazzini, who anwered
for the two Poles,—tell me will you answer whether you opened
the letters of Mr. Duncombe?—( Vehement cheering. )
Lord SANDON rose; but having remained silent for a short
time, a cry of " Question; question l" was raised by the Oppo-
sition. He said he did not catch the question of the Right
lion. Gentleman, and begged he would repeat it.
11Ir. S HEIL—I did not eels any question of the Noble Lord
(Loud Cheers.) It was of the Right Hon. Gentleman I asked
the question—(Loud cheers)—l asked the question of him, and
I now repeat the interrogatory—( Loud cheering. )
Lord SANDON said that, as the question of the Right Hon.
Gentleman was not addressed to hint, but to the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
end as he did not think it consistent with his duty to give

cheers)—he believed it was his duty,
i:onamittee, to make a few observations.—
in the first place, that
( Hear, hear.) e "erriitrk,
' tinder a great disad-
vantage, members of the Committeelaboureu
aaanyChaal;man of
because, from the cireemstances under which the
vantage,
begged to
make it a secret one, thereby signifying tn4i there ~#24; p!'pe-•
Committee was appointed— the 'House lif.'jn.ie thought fit to
thing in the nature of the subject which should not be re-
vealed—they were precluded from replying to many questions
that might be asked of them. It might be wrong to appoint a
Secret Committee, but as long as the House was of sptniun
that it ought to be so, they could not go beyond what was
stated in the report, witholit violating their duty to the House
which appointed them. That report contaiued the answer to
all that had been said by the Hon. Genths.roah (Mr. Dune
combe). It might he said that the report was evasive acid un-
satisfactory, because it did net gratify the prurient curiosity Of
indiveluals—(Cheers)—bnt it contained a full and fair ac-
count of the entire transaetiou, He believed he spoke
the opinions of the entire Committee, when he 444 t!!3t the in-
formation conveyed to them was full and complete and at to
Hight Hon. Gentlemen (Sir J. Graham) had stated, it was net
extracted by cross-examination, but was fully and freely laid
before them, and they had the opportunity of t§ting the asser-
tion' made by reference to the documents themselves. klo
doubt the public sympathy went in this case along wi:h thOse
persons who took refuge in this country, upon whose soil the
slave became free the moment he touched it; bit it shenid be
recollected that they were engaged in tratisaistiuns which might
have compromised the peace of Europe.—(lJear, hear?) Ho
would not give any oninion as to the propriety of the course
adopted. The Hon. elentleasan had exercised his powers of
ridicule on the last page of the report, and he did not mean to
say that it would bear the test of criticism. He edmiteed It
was a piece of Mosaic—a bit of white here and a bit of black
there; but the Committee were of opinion that it was better to
state the arguments which might be used for and against the
power of issuing warrants fur opening letters, than that they
should state any opinions or conclusions of their own.
lie believed it was admitted that the issuing of the warrants
had taken place only in the exercise of a conscientious duty on
the part of the Government. He believed that, on the whole,
the Government had exercised a sound discretion in the course
they had porsued.
Sir JAMB, GRAH teNif felt Wend at the present moment
to make a few observations to the House, as he should be ex.
tremely sorry to have it supposed that he intended to act dis-
courteoudY to those Hon, Members who had put questions to
him. The House would remember that in the last session hp
had declined, 'respectfully hut firmly, to answer any questions
with respect to the warrants that had been issued. At that
time, however, he stated that if the House thought fit to ap-
point a tribunal to inquire into the matters he should at once
bow to their decision and make any statements to them

they might require.—(Hear, hear.) It was the pleasure
of the House to appoint that Committee —it was
formed of his pilitical oppcinents, and yet he had
given every information to them that he could. There
'was not one act of his for which he was responsible as a Minis-
ter of the Crown which he had not stated to the Committee.
—( Hear, hear.) Having done this, he could not, comistently
with his duty, answer any further interrogatories.—( Hear. )
He had given all the information in his power in M. Mazzini's
ca'e, and the other one that had been referred to, and he could
not go further ; and if any other warrant was brought before
the House, he should be prepared to deaiwith it as he had done
in M. Maazirti's case.

Mr. HU.IE tkoug ht they had no right to blame the Right
Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had given full informa-
tion before the Committee. What, then, were they to do?
Why, they should not question the Right Honourable
Baronet's accuracy till they knew what the Right Honourable
Baronet had stated. He wished to impress upon Hon. Mem-
bers last session that a Secret Committee would not satisfy
the public, and he thought that in that opinion he had been
borne out. The House appointed a Select Committee, and
that Committee was appointed at the suggestion of the Right
lion. Baronet. lie had said on a former occasion that the
character of the country was at stake, and that the only course
to be pursued was to make the proceedings of the' Committee
open.—( Hear, hear.) The. report that had been produce&
from the Committee was of • such a character that
no person could form an opinion upon it. He lk-
lieved that the proceedings tkat had taken place
would never have been sanctioned, if it had been supposed that
the Government would have pursued the course they had done.
He never could have believed, until the, Right Hon. Baronet
admitted it, that he would have become the police-officer of
the King of Naples. After the statements that had been made
that Members of that House had had their letters opened, and
their affairs made public, was it to be supposed the public
would rest quiet, or that they would allow such things to con-
tinue ? It was true, the Right Hon. Baronet had sufficient in
numbers to stifle inspiry, hut, after what had been stated, it
was impossible Ministers couli so far forego their characters as
to permit the system so continue.—( Hear.) Why was the
Committee appointed ? Why, for the purpose of considering
whether it was fit that this power should exist in the Ministry
or not. The present was no political matter, but one io
which the whole country was interested. The duty of the
House was to see what they could do to prevent the evil in
future. He trusted the discussioe would end for the present
by a declaration on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman that
the evidence should be printed, and then Members would be
enabled to come to a sound and satisfactory conclusion.
Sir HANMER had on a previous occasion given his vote
for inquiry. That inquiry took place, and it pleased the House
of Commons to make it secret; he thought now that it was
proved they were to blame in that, as the report that had been
produced was anything but satisfactory. What were the facts
that had been stated that night ? Why, an Hon. Member, the
representative of one of the Metropolitan districts,
had stated in his place in that House that his let-
ters had been opened and subject to inspection.—( Hear.)
But it did concern every free man in England that the House of
Commons should inquire into this charge—( Hear, hear)—it
was bound to see whether or not any letters of the Hon. Mem-
ber had been opened, and if so, whether they had been opened
with sufficient reason—( Hear, hear)—for that would be no in-
considerable guide to them in that question which must in a short
timewith
be brought.
this
extraordinaryuoder power—.a consideration—what
power,
i the intendedxi
e o toc
be
done of
which, he declared, though he hoped he was not unacquainted
ith the history of his country, and though he had paid some
attention to it, and though he had been some time in Parlia-
ment, came upon him with as much surprise as it might on a
man at the Land's-end.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought
there were strong grounds for an inquiry ; he thought the
House ought to appoint a new committee or re-appoint the old
one—(Loud cries of " No, no")—in order to conduct that
ciroiqmapirleyt;e
sotopportt_hat(
HoCommittee
a hn
ed
hesheshuloduld give
ee
that;
support to a motion for it, without entering into any of the
imputations that had been made against the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He did not for a moment entertain them, for
as a man he respected the Right lion. Baronet. He be-
lieved the Right Hon. Baronet was as honest as any man
who had held his high situation ; but he did demand that
this inquiry should be made when it was demanded by a Mem-
ber of that House itself. _

Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it was not his intention to
approach the consideration of this question in anything like an
acrimonious or party spirit, and before entering on the ques-
tion, he might state that he had had the opportunity of pe-
rusing attentively the report that had been made on the sub-
ject, and the result that had formed itself in his
mind, and the conclusion he drew from the perusal
of that report was, that this was a privilege en-
joyed by the Government which was useless for the well-
being of that Government, and which ought to be abandoned
for the safety and honour of the country.--( Hear, hear.) That
was the conclusion at whit.* he had arrived ; perhaps he had
formed a crude judgment on the point, but it was his intention
calmly and dispassionately to lay before the House the reasons
that had induced him to form that conclusion. Before he did
so, he might, in the first instance, address himself to an obser-
vation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He
must say it struck him that one observation he had made was
not justly suited either to the dignity of that House or the dig.
nity of the subject. The Noble Lord 'used toward the Hon.
Member for Finsbury the language that any person who made
an inquiry into a matter so deeply involving his own personal
interest, must be actuated by a prurient curiosity. But the im-
pression upon that House was, that the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury did not demand that inquiry in his place in Parliament
on account of his own personal feelings, but as affecting a
matter involving the individual privileges and feelings of every
Member of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He
would read an extract from the report, and he would then ask
the House if it was possible to conceive terms more stringent,
er language more forcible than that employed, to convey
to that House, and through that House to the
country, that it was the privilege of every representative of the
people to have an unreserved communication with his consti-
tuents. In page 8 of the report, it was stated, that " in 1739,
the House resolved, inter atia, that it is a high infringement of
the privileges of the knights; citizens, and burgesses, chosen
to represent the Commons of Fingland in Parliament, for any
postmaster or his deputy to look into, or open, by any means
whatever, any letter directed to or signed by the proper hand
of any Member of the House, without an express warrant
under the hand of the Secretary of State for every such opening ;
nor shall such ponmaster or hia deputy look into or delay, or
detain, any letter addressed to, or signed by the hand of any
Member, unless by an express warrant from the Secretary of
State for every such detaining or delay." Now, he would ask,
when any Member of Parliament, like the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, relying on this forcible resolution of the House,
came forward in his place and demanded an answer to his alle-
gations, he would repeat again, notwithstanding the reasons
given by the Right Hon. Baronet for not answering that de-
rnand, that the impression that would be made on the country
by that silence would be an unsatisfactory one. He stated
that, because he recollected that all the difficulties that
had been created on this subject might have been
avoided altogether, if the Right Hon. Baronet would have
pursued the same course in the case of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, as when the Hon. and Learned Member for Beth
brought before the House strong and impressive charges against
several individual Members of that House.—( Hear, hear.)
He recollected perfectly well at that time, that an objection
was made to placing the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath
on the Committee of Inquiry, but he was afterwards selected
as Chairman of it, and he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would
challenge any person who was present at the investigation of
what was called the Compromise Committee, or any one who
sat on that Committee, to say whether the conduct of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, as its Chairman, did not raise
him still higher than before in the estimation of the House, on
account of the impartiality he had displayed.—( Hear, hear )
He brought his great natural sagacity, as well as his legal
acumen to the investigation, and he asked if the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, whose privileges not merely as an individual,
but which were in some respects the property of the country,
had been violated, might not fairly and reasonably have been
added to the Committee ? It was because he was not added to
it, that the investigation had been so unsatisfactory.—
( Hear, hear.) T e Right Honourable Baronet had
came forward to-night, and declared that he did not
feel called on by his sense of public duty to make any decla-
ration to the lion. Member. But he at the same time de-
clared, on his honour as a gentleman, that he had made a free
ahlousdue and unreserved
of theervedcomirou communication
of Lords;icationto and h
theComemittees of this
Murphy) was bound is and did believe that he had
Sergeant
Murphy) done so.
But when he said that, he was afterwards led to another ques-
tion, which arose from another statement that had fallen from
the Right lion. Baronet. He told them that no communica-
tion of his bad led in any degree to any intervention between
this country and foreign States, by which the latter were en-
abled to repress some attempts at invasion or insurrection.
But he asked the Right Hon. Baroaet whether he would go to
the length of telling them that no other person connected with
her Majesty's Government had not given such information ?
( Hear, hear.) He asked whether, even in the dim and
shadowy manner in which that information might have been
givens it was not sufficient to convey to those Governments
who, it was well known, had secret and very able diplomatic
theynco followed
agents in this country, an intimation of who were the parties,
just as clearly as if the names themselves had been given ?
( Hear, hear.) Did they not know that this.
g country was
übine
re nfturs,
up such investigations ? Was it not known that Russia em-
ployed a great number of persons of this 104 whose busi-
ness it
to was
denounce to
furnish such
pinsotheir
Hon. G
rse"na.aramrkinabglewfoitrhthtehesagdaipclintymaantide skagilelnwtsithofwfhoicrel: tries,
Finsbury, therefore, asked the question, and he ( Sergeant
Murphy) did not think it had b en satisfactorily answered,
and
unless an equally distinct assurance could be given byinformationlon
Ttohe
the
Right Hon. Baronet, as that by which he had exonerated him-
self, that the Earl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, stood equally absolved from making
any such communication. Now, before he went into any
other branch of the case, he might be allowed to state pertain
matters he believed had a useful bearing on the question.
From the manner in which the report was drawn up, he
thought these warrants might be done away with altogether.
He might class the use of these warrants under three se-
parate heads ; the first was in matters purely criminal; the
second in matters seditious and political ; the third involving
us in relations with Foreign States. Now, with regard to
;, V 1
antiquity, and the antiquity
cf tlha;: snr e w
wasrr an t thats first
Gt'
the fiat. One nf the grounds ail which 't 24 possible to be
rnain
upon a warrant
of Anne, po Pfi?lffinations issued antecedent to
that period, but he was certain if they went higher up in search
a dPell4d
of precedents for popular liberty, they would hardly adopt the
re ign so
precedents. C h a r;
ne s ohratJyyamlyeslii,,,pro;
ththe elTCl.orrni4rlmtosnuwseedal?th,lworil thoseter
St, and he was confirmed in the belief of
gard to criminal resiters, alt his ettp;rtence qr inns:
tigaiions proved that ne OtteF_ wane ever protltteed Whicoh at all
nal
elucidated any part of a criminal proceeding. He had never
Right Hon. Baronet him-
iktr
isl7itialnityinbstyanthcee
self; io'hOinidilienf t43tlnll ffiMad tn tha 491,14
exercise of this privilege, it was t unsafigaacry anti incon-
venient, and, he believed, he went the length of saying that it
wiieht be dispensed with. Was not the House aware of the
deep
koingt r
ti, privilege which existed in the public
mind, when the Hon. t''3,l)49:brolight thismotion
forward last year? Did not every sotfatement of the
newspaper iiironglioist the
coiptry, no sor P
ttcf what nolitics, deqognce it ?--ss
(Hear, hear.) Di Alt wt.). 4Seipty chin, which a
'ratan went to obtain political information from, ring with
one universal titiferY dust the Government ?—(.' No,' from
4 rild not
~,b,eltley‘e that the present Secre-
tary Ableinissatiedria“l t4ent!Priin said it Ng, ne,"
remendmis cries of No, no.t')
lie did not mean to determine with what justice that opinion
preceded' 1,44,
e, tor exercise ncll.
privilege, than any rho had
qre arYeriT
w s ezipsretastsee4w,
was
that, as busted by ' the 1-6 a• Baronet btit It W4s certain
10)9 spice last (Sir J.
Hammon) that it came upon the countr.,:
'i a no-
velty. Wherever he went at that time all parties, irrespective
of creeds or politics, joined throughout the country in one uni-
versal feeling against it.-- Cries of no.")
tslesTriithieenilfte
tellnigeanil4tNo with which ihbetitl4loi
("ricTs appealed
et
ion
ethose t
that:n.hs
ifssia., Was if, Useful finr foreign purposes.? Would it not have been
more useful to make a stringent Alien Act, which would give
kl the power of reimvjag wont _ plotting ainst foreign States,
than for the Member& of 4 k-Osernrnerit to act as spies for
foreign States ? It was alleged on the present occasion that
no information had been given which could prove hurtful to in-
dividuals. He must say that he considered such information,
so far from being useful, would be highly injurious from its
vagueness, and that it was likely to involve innocent persons

by reason of the suspicion which it would entail. For these
reasons he wished that this country should get rid of a practice
which, so far from being beneficial, was, he thought, on 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 vestion 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.
Ile discussion of that subject would come much better under
the notice of the House in the shape of a distinct motion for
altering the existing law and the existing usage, rather than
upon the particular motion which the Hon. 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 thought 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 been pre-
sent at the discussions which took place on a former occasion ;
for if he had been present he would have seen that the Alien
Act was repealed from the impression that the Alien Act might
be madesubsery lent, not to the interests of this country, but to the
paornotion 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 ha would be
if there was an absolute discretion and power to remove the
alien from the country alto Other ? 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 fur parting with this power, would see the
injustice of his opieio.r. He hoped the House would not allow
ties 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 Honeursble
Member fer 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 Commit'ee 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 of 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; they had
withheld no fact—nothing even affecting the interests of indi-
viduals or the general interests of the country—in order that the
Committee m ght form a judgment as to the exercise of the
power vested in the Secretary of State. On these conditions,
be 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 us this instrument for maintain-
ing and preserving the public peace.—( Hear, hear.) For 150
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 Hence of
Commons should be exempted from the operation of this
power ; for the resolution went on to say that the privilege on
the part of the Postmaster- General to open letters did not
extend to Members of that House, unless opened under a war-
rairit.—( 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
1837 ? Why, Sir, in 1837 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 should not be
opened in Great Britain except in obedience to as 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 lastly have been blameable.
Hon. Members on that sided f 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, 1842, 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 for Wolverhampton
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 madnessio permit Parlia-
ment to separate withotit 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 that a general feeling of
discontent designing men , that the col-
the town of Hanley, in bands of
afe ,
oa
about with bludgeons, exciting
portion of the people who
irrtsh aofornu dsa
thousand
terror
n men,
was
miles
e en n,
ag rem aroundoi
adnmeg r
roamed
d thatd
were really disposed tq 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 he
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 distdrbed state of the mengfacturiug dis-
tricts, as the evils which were paranmemt there, unless checked
in time, would invqlee 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 he understood as giving rise to these disorders.
He asked the House to consider the condition of the manufge,
turing districts, and to make some inquiries to mitigate the dis-
tresses which prevailed. That was the language used by
Hon, Members in the month Qf August, 1842, and yet Mi-
nisters asked for no extraordinary powers to repress the spirit
of dieorder 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 manufacturing
interest to the mercy of the thousands and tens of thousands
of tumultuous persons, who were wandering in a state of idle-
ness in those districts? If they had neglected the ordinary
powers which the law gave, then Hon. Members on the oppo•
site side would have been the very first to blame them
for this Vemissness, and to find fault for not having in a more
energetic :manner exercised in such 411 hour the very power
for which they were now called in question, He (Sir R.
Peel) knew nothing more painful than the possession of a
power of this nature, and with regard to the duties that de-
volved upon these for the maintenance of the peace of the
country, he could only say that in his experience
they were most painful duties. --( Hear, hear.) If
they had reason to believe, fee instancie, that in this free
Country p9rsOß were handed together, or connected with others
tq ihe Nary ofanother oouutry, then the painful consideration
would weigh with them whether they ought to avail themselves
of that power, and so give information of those machinetigna to
that foreign country in which it would not lie a breach of faith
to examine the eerrespentlegee of private individuals, if they
toreow thqt trhe prubaftility of disturbances in those countries
would have a tendency to produce a general war—and if by this
means they should repress disorders that were likely to involve
the interests of two countries, then that original difieulte-.ethe
using of that power—would be greatly increased, and it might
h 9 Illeetlon how ter they might be justified in availing them-
selves of fiat priyiloge, -Was it to be expected that, in such
a passe 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 be the Are; Ministry to
bear the brunt of nopalar indignation, of pnpu•
lir feeling A Elomnlittee 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 peedecesecees in office had
dqne the %the. They had to choOie between the opening the
IPtlefs-gf individuals free from blame and the passing over
matters matters that concerned
welre of mighty countries. They
Gentlemen have neg.
Russia was in danger. Would Henn
They examined into
lected due precaution in such a case,.
any
of the Ho-
ned been informed last year that the life Of the
the accuracy of that information, and if
the conduct of the
nourable Gentlemen who impugned
o this rower had filled the
secretary of State in the exercise of
dqac
the salamis Would
same high office, would
nit
adoptedlr by any Ministry The
not such a course haveneglecting no means wbioh would
Ministry were justified
I and internal peace of the country.
tend to secure the ezterna
• had been said that her ajes yNI • t's Government had
But .A
that some suspicion existed of their hav-
ing this power, orEmperor I
Well, now, the House had all the facts before it, as reported by
the Committee, and looking at the constitution of that Com-
ing perverted it to the base purposes of political expediency.

mittee, and looking at the nine men who constituted the Com•
mittee of the House of Lords, he would ask, could it be said
that there had really been an abuse of that power, or such an
abuse of it as would warrant the use of such an expression as a
base abuse of it ?—(Hear.) Undoubtedly, some mistakes
might have been made; but, surely, it c mid not be said that
this power had been exercised fur an unworthy purpose.--
( Hear, hear. ) Well, then, the Cummittee made a report con-
taining this paragraph. ( Here the Hon. Baronet read the
paragraph, which was to the effect that)—" The Com-
mittee was bout d to say that, having looked back
for a period of twenty years, they had found that this
power had been very sparingly exercised, and never for party
or political purposes, but always to promote the ends of jus-
tice, the public tranquillity, and the best interests of the coun-
try." He would conclude, then, by saying, that it %N ai in such
a way only that this power had been used by the present Go-
vernment; that in some doubtful cases mistakes might have
been made, but that the report of the Committee had declared
that they had not used it for private or personal motives. If the
House believed that, when the Government did exercise this
power, they were urged to do so only by an earnest and faithful
desire to promote the ends of justice—to prevent a disturbance of
the public tranquillity—he would then ask this House, who
gave the Government that power—not- to imply a condemna-
tion of their own Committee, or a suspicion of their conduct,
when placed upon their trial by those who had constituted them
a Committee.—( Loud cheers.)
Mr. WARI3URTON said he felt bound, as a member of
the Committee, and as a Member of that Hotese, standing in
opposiiion to the Right Hen. Baronet, to confirm the statement
of the Hon. Member fur Liverpool. He felt bound to say that
the most unreserved communication of all the facts that could
be made had been made to the Committee, by every Member
of Parliament examined before them ; and that, no matter
what their political opinions, they readily communicated all
that had come to their knowledge upon the subject. He also
felt bound to say that he fully concurred in the paragraph read
by the Right Hon. Baronet from the report, chile at the same
time lie should say that though ha was very active, as a Mem-
ber of the Committee. in looking hack for precedents, he could
find none that, to his conviction, appeared to justify the
extent to which the present Government had exer-
cised that power.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") A Member of
the Committee had said that they would require the assistance
of a legel gentleman on the Committee ; but he (Mr. War-
burton) conceived that it was not law points they had to decide,
but to find out what precedents the Government had for the
exercise of this power. As to the conduct of Sir James
Graham, he ( Mr. Warburton) would 1101 T say, as he had said
before the Committee, that--ca.
Mr. ESTCOTT rose to order. He conceived it was most
unfair and disorderly—(Loud cries of " Order, order")—for
•any Member to state to that House the opinions expressed by a
Secret Committee, until the House was in a position to ascer-
tain all the other facts. He apprehended that this having been
a Secret Committee, all that passed in it ought to be kept
secret by the Members.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON said that he had only spokeu upon
what appeared in the report.—( Hear.) If he spoke on what
had occurred in the Committee, and had not been thought
proper to publish, the remark of the Hon. Gentleman who
called him to order would have been perfectly correct.—.
( Hear.) But what he had said in reference to M. Afazzini's
case, was only a comment upon what had been made known in
the report to the whole House, and upon which he had as much
right to express his opinion as any other Member.—( Hear. )
He would press that matter no further. Now the question was,
whether it was expedient to grant to the Hon. Member for
Finsbury the committee which he asked for ; and he ( Mr.War-
but ton ) thought that as a member of the former Committee he was
bound to state his own opinion on that question. 'Well, then,
his own opinion was that the facts had been stated to the House
by the former Committee as far as it was for the public good
they should be. —( Hear, hear.) It would have been very easy
for the Committee to have been more communicative—( Hear,
and a laugh)—if they had thought that it would be for the
public good that they should be so. He apprehended that it
was the duty of the Committee to lay before the House the facts
as far as was necessary to enable the House to judge whether it
was fit that the power should he continued. In coming to a con-
clusion upon that matter, the House would be guided by the
general impression of the facts, and not by the opinion
of any one Member of the Committee. (Hear,
hear.) The general effect of the facts stated by the
Committee in the report, upon his mind was, that it was
not worth the while of any Government whatever to retain
the po cr.—( Hear, hear.) There had been eight warrants
on the average in the year, and the greater part of them were
issued in criminal cases.—( Hear, hear.) Those were cases
in which no one could suppose the power was of any advantage;
for to effect any public utility the practice should be generally
known. But he had inquired of his own solicitor, who had
great experience in criminal cases, and that lawyer informed
him, that lie had never known the Government possessed any
such power. Surely it was not worth the while of
the Government to incur the unpopularity of a
power of such little use. But further, when he
considered the immense physical power which the
Government now possessed through means of the railways,
and by which they were enabled to send the whole of the army
and police to any one part of the kingdom within twenty-four
hours, if the internal peace of the country were threatened,
surely it was not worth their while to continue a practice so
much opposed to the moral feelings of the people.—( Hear. )
Mr. WA KLEY said the Hon. Member for Kendal (Mr.
Warburton) had avowed himself the author of the antiquarian
evidence contained in the report—( A laugh)—and the Hon.
Member confessed that, with all his research, he had been able
to find no authority whatever for the Secretary of State's open-
ing letters as had been done. But the Secretary of State told
the House that his authority was in a statute of Anne.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, no ; he had stated that the
power of issuing warrants was first granted in a statute of Anne,
which had been confirmed by subsequent statutes.
Mr. WAKLEY said, that was in point of substance what
lie had just said. The statute of Anne was the foundation
and original of the authority, as the Secre'ary of State now ac-
knowledged. But the Hen. Member for Kendal said, that he
could find no authority whatever in ancient usage.—( Hear. )
The debate had gone to such a point that they ought to 'nave
an acknowledgment on the part of the Right Hon. Baronet of
the source whence he derived the authority 7: Inch he had exer-
cised with regard to the opening of the letters.—( Hear, hear.)
Ile again stated that lie understood the Right Hon. Gentleman
to say the foundation of that authority was contained in the
Act of Queen Anne. In the course of his speech the Eight
lion. Gentleman remarked upon the constitution of the Cons-
, mittee of the House of Commons, and its great legal acquire-
nients.—( Hear, hear.) Now he wished to bring to
the knowledge of the Ilouse what the Committee of the House
of Lords had reported with regard to the statute of Anne. He
thought it was a most important fact, for it really appeared to
him that there was no legal authority at all for the exercise of
this power. But there might be an emergency—a great public
emergency might arise for a Minister taking upon himself the
responsibility of opening letters, thrcwing himself on the opinion
of Parliament and the public to justify him in the act. This
was a most important decision on the part of the Committee
of the House of Lords. The Committee stated that the pro-
vision contained in the Act of the 9th of Queen Anne, chap.
10, upon this subject, could only be explained upon the sup-
position that this power was for the time fully recognised, for
the Act itself gave no power to the Secretary
of State eitlaor to detain or open letters.--(Hear,
hear.) That was the report of the Lords' Committee.
Now, the Secretary of State had exercised this authority, and
what he wanted to know was, where he got the foundation for
exercising it? The meaning of the Act appeared to him to
be no more than this ;—lf a Secretary of State, upon his
, own responsibility and fur the public safety, should deem it ex-
pedient to open the letters of persons whom he supposed to be
engaged in treasonable practices, the party executing the war-
rant was entirely free from all responsibility. The Statute of
Anne implied that and nothing more, and the decision of the
Lords in that respect was important. Now, it devolved upon
the Government to show that they had exercised a legal authority,
and unless the Secretary of State could show by the statute-
law that he was justified in issuing these warrants, an action at
law would lie against him.—( Hear, hear.) His Honourable
Colleague was placed in an extraordinary position by the course
of the Government. He discharged his duties with great
ability, And he might say, with great valour. He had the
confidence of the people, and he was entitled to that confidence,
for no man could exercise his fooetions in that House more
honestly and ably than he did. Now whattas the position he
was now placed in ? A foreigner, re ying on the ability of his
Hon. Colleague, placed in his hands p etition, in which he
stated—" My letters—my letters have V een opened in your
Post-office. I consider that I am an ill-used man, and I have
petitioned the House of Qommons for redress." The subject
was first mooted there in that form. When the
Right Ilot. Baronet, immediately following the presenta-
tion of that petition, was asked a question with regard
to the number of warrants issued to open the letters of
an individual named Stoltman, the Right Hon. Baronet
replied that, if his Hon. Colleague had given him notice, he
would have told hint whether he had done so or not. Well,
from this it was imagined that the Right Hon. Baronet had
issued such a vast number of warrants that he could net re-
collect the name of Stoltman ; but it turned out afterwards,
front a Committee of the Hotter, of Lords, that warrants had
only been issued with regessel to one or two individuals. Well,
as the case progres,sed, a Secret Committee was appointed to
inquire into the circumstances, and he hoped that it would be
a usefel lesson to them never to appoint another. The Secret
Committee made a report in which they disclosed everything
they thought necessary for the public advantage, and intimated
that it would be dangerous to the community if anything more
were known. Now, the name of his Hon. Colleague was ex-
cluded from that report, and he now charged the Government
with having °pelted his own letters. What was the answer
made to this charge? The Right Hon. Baronet was not ex-
eluded from his own secrecy, and the name of her Majesty was
introduced on that occasion in a most extraordinary manner.
The Right Hon. Baronet screened himself from censure by in-
troducing the name of the Queen. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man did not deny the charge, but the Right Hon. Baronet
the First Lord of the Treasury had made a sort of justifica-
tion, or attempted to make a justification of the
charge. What did the Right Hon. Baronet say ? He said the
country in 1842 was in a state of commotion. That the rural
districts were in a frightful state of agitation, and that incen-
diarism was rife throughout the country. Now what was the
conclusion to be drawn from all this? 'Vas it that his lion.
Colleague was connected with seditious movements at that
time ?—( Hear, hear.) not was the inference. That was
the justification of opening the letters of an Hon.
Member of that House.—( Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Baronet's language was so plain and obvious,
that it could not be misunderstood by any one. If the Right
Hon. Baronet did not mean that, what did he mean ?—( Hear,
hear.) Why were those circumstances cited ?—( Hear, hear,
and cheers.) Observe, his Hon. colleague, in his political
warfare, was fond of attacking illinisters; and the Right Hon.
Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department
being high game, was often selected for assault.—( Laughteerm..).
Ho 000asiuually attacked the judges. Now was an Hon.toN
Mem-
ber, who exercised those very useful public functions, haveattacked
his letters opened, and that by the a
—( Hear, hear)—who sheltered himselfun-)derrtwy
called responsibility, though that responsibilityl aswhaatthl'ags
tt
eyr could
was,
which nobody could touch, and no subtot
discover. 'The Right Hon. Gentleman's YfficoiralinegheanrauC
and after the
without doubt, implicated in thistransaction;
the letters of a
insinuations which had been
. thrown. out, they had a right to
was justified opening
know why a afinisce
Member of that Haw, and casting upon him the odious brand
notdenied that the letters of his Han. 'Col-
of sedition. It was would all hold their seats,
league had been opened, and they
hues, under peculiar circumstances, unless the
characters,
Right Hon.außdariovneet..did not state the circumstances which
him in prying into an Hon. Member's letters.
justified
supposin,g there were legal authority by im-
plication for opening letters, was there anything to justify the
whole of these movements being secret? Where wee is said
in the law that they might open a lettees it up
it :vas intendedl
and then forward it, the near; whotzt
never suspectige nad been dons 2_ Hear ' ) 11041'. Last Caere eiken'this preceessl'nse, :or a morßent, to the ease of a
magistrate who issued a search weitette to, search a house;
for whether the 'warrant refereed to a house or a letter the
principle was Vas, same. Before a magistrate would issue such
a warrant he mtsst have, information on oath. Let them sup-
pose, however, That a policeman had gone into a house by
night, and after (Toiling the doors had searched
the lipase, and gone out again in such a manner
as entirely to conceal what had been done. He
believed every one would acknowledge that the magistrate
who had directed such proceedings was unfit for his post, and
'he case must be very strong which would justify the Right
lion. Baronet in the course which he had pursued. The lion.
Member then referred to the case of captain Stoltman
and Mr. Wursell, the proceedings in whose case im-

-yrj

plied, he said, that they contemplated assassination. Were
they acquitted? The Committee stated that there WAS ' .147 7
_,
nothing to eliminate the gentleman whom the Committee had ..!--;;,,--Y. 4
reluctantly named. Why did they not acquit them? He -('5.,,/„..,
I
understood from his Hon. Colleague that the spy who had .--S,'`V
caused these gentlemen to be suspected had already received x>
the reward of his infamy. Was this a system to be tolerated ? !- _
lint he would not go into these cases. He would ,
not now dis.
cuss the question of whether the power was justifiable or not.
That was not the question now. His Hon. Colleague had
stated that hii:, letters had been opened. - A Member of that
House alleged that his letters had been opened by the Secretary
of State lb: the Home Department, and that Right Hon. Gen.
tleman shielded himself behind his oath of secrecy. It was
impossible that the public could be satisfied—that House could
not be satisfied—the House would not do justice to its own
character and position if they did not demand a full, complete,
and searching inquiry into the pointed and personal accusation
that the Hon. Gentleman had made._( Cheers. )
Mr. BROTHERTON then moved the adjournment of the
debate, arid it was adjourned accordingly.
Mr. ROEBUCK inquired to what day the debate would be
adjourned. He understood that, to-morrow, the Committee
of Ways and Means would be proceeded with.
Sir R. PEEL said the debate on the income-tax would be
resumed to-morrow, as it could only be taken on Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays.
Mr. ROEBUCK supposed the debate then would be ad-
journed to Thursday.
Sir R. PEEL-Ales.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE suggested that it should be made an
order of the day.
Sir R. PEEL said that, as far as the Government was con• cerned, they would give way.
Mr. M. MILNEs gave notice that, t be would
to-morrow, ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government,
at the time they communicated to the Italian Government the
probability of an invasion, at the same time desired the agents
of the English Government to put the parties implicated on
their guard, and to take steps to prevent such invasion.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM then postponed the introduction
of his Medical Reform Bill to a future day.
The other notices were then disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at Half-past Twelve.

COMMITTEES on PETITIONS for
RAILWAY BILLS.
A Sub-Committee, consisting of Mr. Strutt, Chair-
man, Mr. Clive, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Compton, Mr.
Brotherton, and other Honourable Members, assem-
bled yesterday morning, in order to ascertain whether
the promoters of the following Bills had com-
plied with the standing orders; viz. :—Cocker-
mouth and Workington Railway ; Whitby and
Pickering Railway; Hull and Selby (Bridling-
ton Branch) Railway ; Kendal and Winder-
mere Railway ; Chager and Birkenhead Extension ;
Lancaster and Carlisle ; Guildford, Chester, and
Portsmouth Railway ; and Wakefield, Pontefract,
and Goole Railway. The Committee, after proof,
decided that the following Bills had complied with
the standing orders, namely :—Cockermouth and
Workington; Hull and Selby (Bridlington Branch);
Kendal and Windermere ; Chester and Birkenhead
Extension ; and Lancaster and Carlisle. And that the
Whitby and Pickering had not, in some particulars,
complied with the standing orders, by which this Bill
will have to be referred to the Select Committee.
WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE

RAILWAY.
The inquiry respecting this line was resumed this
morning in a Sub-Committee on Standing Orders. It
occupied the whole of the day, and after a few objec-
tions had been allowed, the Committee adjourned till
to-morrow at two o'clock.
GUILDFORD, CHICHESTER, AND PORTS-
MOUTH RAILWAY.
One of the Sub-Committees decided that the pro-
moters of this line had not strictly complied with
the standing orders of the House of Commons. The
line was opposed by the Duke of Richmond, and the
principal ground of objection was, that a quantity of
land had been set down in the books of reference, and
described on the plans, as the property of the Earl of
Egremont, wherras it really belonged to his Grace
the Duke of Richmond.

NEW PROJECTED RAILWAYS
(From the Gazette of last Night)
RAILWAY DEPARTMENT, BOARD Oh TRADE,
WHITEHALL, FEB. 18, 1845.
Notice is hereby given, that the Board constituted by the
Minute of the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for
Trade, for the transaction of railway business, having had
under consideration the following schemes, for extending
railway communication in Scotland, viz.
The Clydesdale Junction Railway,
The Caledonian,
The Edinburgh and Glasgow—Stirling Branch,
The Edinburgh and Hawick,
The Glasgow, Dumfrics, and Carlisle,
The Scottish Central ;
have determined on reporting to Parliament in favour of the
Clydesdale Junctibu,
Caledonian,
Edinburgh and llawick,
The Scottish Central ;
and against the
• Edinb"':"B7ti and Glasgow—Stirling Branch,
(I..asgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle.
. _

DALHOUSIE.
C. W. PASLEY.
D. O'BRIEN. G. R. PORTER.
S. LAING.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.
PORTSMOUTH, PER. 15.—The Lily, 16, Commander New-
ton, went out of harbour on Monday, and sailed yesterday
for the coast of Afrida. She proceeds direct to St. Pants de
Loando, to land Mr. Brand, British Vice-Consul and ge,,,-
tar - of the Mixed Commission there, who goes out in her
as passenger.
The Persian, 16, Commander Coryton, sailed from Devon-
port on Wednesday, for the West Indies.
The Eagle, 50, Captain G. B. Martin, C. 8., at Sheerness,
is ordered to proceed to Spithead to be paid advance wages,
and to wait fUrther orders. She is about 90 officers and men
short of her complement.
The Espiegle, 12, Commander Harris, and the Flying Fish,
12, Commander Thompson, were off Deronport on Wednes-
dayat 211. sm. P.M. They made signals, which were answered.
They were not to go into the Sound, but were ordered again
to sea.
The Canopus, 84, at Plymouth, was commissioned yes—
terday.

The Alarm, 26, at Sheerness, building, is ordered to be
fitted for sea.

The Dee steam-transport arrived this morning with dis-
posahleseamen, from Cork.

The Black Eagle steamer came here yesterday from the
Riv(r.

A new first class scraw-propelled steam-frigate, of 520
horse power, is ordered to be laid down in this dockyard ou
the plan of Mr. Fincham, master shipwright. The following
are the dimensions ordered :

Ft. In.
Length
.. 210 0
Breadth
Depth
Tons, 1,453.
Also a 46-gun frigate, with an auxiliary screw of 300 horse
power, for a complement of 450 men, of the following
dimensions :

Ft. In.
Length
Breadth
4
Depth
Tons, 1,862.
CHATHAM, FRIDAY, FEB. 14.—The Queen, 110 guns, in
dock, is to have her powder-magazine, which i 4 now in the
centre, removed to the fore part of the ship. At present
there is no other alteration determined on. The Comas, 20
guns, Commander Thompson, was towed to Saltpan-reach
on the 12th instant by the African steam-vessel. It is under-
stood that the Fantome and Comus are to proceed to Ply-
mouth to await for final orders ; their destination is supposed
to be for the Straits. The Buldog steam-frigate, building
in the first slip, is fast progressing—her skinning is complete,
except the top-rail. A Court of Inquiry was held yesterday
by the Captain-Superintendent, Captain W. H. Sherritf, and
the Solicitor to the Admiralty, Mr. Geo. Spill, at the Cap-
tain-Superintendent's Office, •in the Dock-yard—relative to
the recent destructive fire in the yard. The Court was
strictly private. The whole of the Dock-yard police on duty
at the time the fire was discovered underwent examination.
The origin of the fire remains a mystery, notwithstanding
the majority of opinions prevail in the Dock-yard that the
tiring was wilful, as the Pound, at which the fire first broke
out was solely under the care of a keeper, and no one was
allowed to go into that place on any occasion ; if a piece of
timber was required for the joiners' shops, the workman re-
quiring it was obliged to ask the keeper for it ; and as the
workmen leave the yard in the evening the Pound-keeper
locks up the gates, and delivers the keys to the Clerk of the
Stores. The Pound, which extended the whole length of
the building, was half covered over, for the purpose of
keeping the fir timber dry, the remaining part was exposed
for tile purpose of seasoning the mahogany, of which there
was a considerable quantity. The lire, when first observed
by the police, was about 20 feet within side of the gate, and
in the centre of a pile of fir-boards of about 24 to 30 feetl in
length, and from one to two inches in thickness. The night
after the fire the whole of the officers and men of the yard
were divided off into four relieves ; each relieve, consisting
of 500 men, kept watch for above three hours
_thoniarilg the
night. During the fire private Riddell,inoifbetrhefißmy M
‘t.c aC1073
tjl, orhtad his sword broken,
rhiinme ,
and uthigh,tntbroke by a
Wood, ° piece
injuries about
B‘‘.
s'abo-Ut his person, by the fall-
iaungd
oafl ssome
e eoifv ethdesoe ruins.inj
ITOLNTMENTS.
Sia,ournddeorfs
the Admiralty,
be to
p Privatetais—secTrbeetarHyo to
—William Wvndham Hornby (1841), to the
n.
the room of Capt. W.
.A. B. Hamilton, second Secretary tn.
Admiralty, vice Sir Jtioh6liecilillaß'lidrasrtrow, Bart., retired.
the
Lieutenants—H. N.
- Burroughes tothe
stye;' J. C. to the Rodney.
Styx; Reginald
T. J. Levinge, to command the Dolphin, vice Hoare, inva-
lided; W. Howatt, W. Tottenham, F. H. Stanfell and H. C.
'fattnall, to the Vanguard; F. G. Leigh, to the Stromboli;
W. H. Webb, to the Firebrand; Octavius Cumberland, to
the Racehorse, vice Tottenham ; David Elliott, to the Pen' e-
lope; James Wood (d), of the Fearless, t
Pailnidaosrtaer;s_Hß.
.Tiolbuyn•,atieo, tolfieuSlet \c'xo.mas,
to,
the cZn-xna;auS'atr.null;
S. Flynn, to the Vanguard.
Surgeons—Dr. A. Yeoman, to the Styx ; Dr, Andrew Mil-
lar, to the Trafalgar, vice Bruce; Allan M'Laren, to the
I'oictiers, vice M•heclinie ; John Smith, to the Vanguard.
Paymasters and Pursers—Thomas Shanks, to the Van-
guard; Edward NN'ard, to the Styx.
Mates—G. H. Wale, to the Cyclops; F. J. Hornby, of the
Formidable, to the Excellent ; I. N. F. Congreve, to the
Styx ; A. Philliniore, to the Vanguard.
Second ?:asters—John S. Smith to the Pandora ; J. W.
dal:, to the Vanguard.
Assistant-Surgeons—Thos. Luscombe, and Caleb R. Pro-
thcroe (additional) to the San Josef ; E. Elliott and J. G.
M'Cullagh, to the Vanguard.
Naval Instructor—G. F. Parker, of the Aigle, to tha Reality:
Midshipman—S. Shipworth, to the Excellent.
Naval Cadets—H. Batten, to the Lily; T. B. Herbert, to
the St. Vincent.

Clerk in Charge—B. W. Tribe, to the Pandora.
Masters' Assistants—Wm. Barrett, and G. Gilpin, to the
Vanguard.
ROYAL MARINEs —Major Morrison, to relieve Captain IV.
Ford, in the Recruiting Service at Birmingham. Captain
John Miller (1843); First Lieutenant C. C. llamley (1841),
Plymouth Division ; and Second Lieutenant L. Reeves
(1844
Woolwich Division, to the Vanguard, at Ph-mouth.
Second Lieutenants W. S. Davis, of the Woolwich birisionr
and M. Patty, of the Portsmouth Division, to the Excellent,
to study for the Royal Marine Artillery.