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

cestershire, complaining of agricultural distress, and

praying for relief.
Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition from York
against the grant to Maynooth.
Lord COURTENAY presented a petition from Totnes
against the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition against the grant
to Maynooth.
Colonel WOOD presented two petitions against the
additional grant to Maynooth.
Captain I'ECLIELL presented a petition from a sur-
geon in Brighton, named Pickferd, against the Physic
and Surgery Bill. The Zion. and Gallant Member, at
the samo time, prdsented petitions signed by forty-
seven medical practitioners, and agreed to at a public
meeting of the profession, held in Brighton, against the
Medical Reform Bill. •
Mr. GROGAN presented several petitions from the
inhabitants of Dublin against the proposed increased
grant to the College of Maynooth.
Sir J. TYRRELL presented several petitions against
the grant to the College of Maynooth.
BURIALS IN LARGE TOWNS.
Lord MAHON presented a petition from the parish of
Paddington against the interruent within the precincts

of large towns.
SCOTCH BANKING SYSTEM.
Captain GORDON presented a petition from Aber-
deen against any interference with the present system
of banking in Scotland.
NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. HUTT gave notice that, on Thursday neat, -he
would present a petition of en extraordinary character
from the Legislative Council of New South Wales,
praying to have conceded to that colony the right which
had been granted to Canada of importing corn into this

country.
The HoN. MEmnEn was about to give another notice
on the same subject, when
• The SPEAKER decided that he could rot do so
until after the other notices had been gone through.
THE CONDITION OF THE LABOURING
CLASSES.

Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that, on this day fort-
night, he would bring forward a motion rcTocting the
condition of the labouring- classes in England and Wales,
THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice that, in the Committee
of Supply, he would ask leave of the Ifouse to make an
explanation respecting statements which had been pub-
lished as to his conduct in connexion with the New
Zealand Company.
Captain ROUS took that opportunity of giving no-
tice that when the question was brought forward he
would move a resolution to the effect that the conduct
of the Directors of the New Zealand Company was op-
posed to the interests and policy of this country.
EXCISE DUTY ON SPIRITS.
On the motion of Sir R. FERGUSON the following
return was ordered:—Account of the produce of the
excise duty rec(ived on spirits in Ireland, during each
of the years ending the sth day of April, 1844 and 1845;
and the number of gallons brought to charge, showing
the increase or decrease in gallons and in duty. Ac-
count of the number of gallons of spirits brought to
charge in Ireland, and the duty paid thereon, in the
quarters ending the sth day of April, 1844 and 1845,
showing the increase or decrease. Account of
the number of gallons of proof spirits (distin-
guishing the quantities produced from malt and
from a mixture of malt and unmalted grain) on
which duty was paid for home consumption in Ireland,
in each quarter of the years ending respectively the sth
of April, 1844 and 1845, and in each of the years. Ac-
count of the number of detections and the number of
persons prosecuted for offences in Ireland against the
laws for the suppression of illicit distillation, in each
quarter of the years ending respectively the sth day of
April, 1844 and 1845, distinguishing those convicted.
Account of the number of persons confined in each gaol
in Ireland for offences against the laws for the sup-
pression of illicit distillation on the sth day of January,
the sth day of Marsh, and the ith day of April, 1845
(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 411, of
Session 1844).
Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved an bumble address to
her Majesty for a copy of the dispatch of Lord Syden-
ham to Lord John Russell of the 9th of August, 1841,
respecting
.the territory in dispute between Great Britain
and America.—Ordered.
MR. MAZZINI.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in answer to a question
from Mr. Duncombe, which was not audible, said that
he was not able to lay before the House any further
information, in reference to the statements made by him
regarding Mr. Mazzini.
SCOTCH AND IRISH BANKS.
Sir ROBERT PEEL announced that he would take
any early opportunity of stating to the House what the
measure was which the Government proposed to intro-
duce relative to banking establishments in Scotland
and Ireland. The pressure of other impor-
tant busineis was at present very great ; but
he would in the course of a month, and before the
period referred to by Hon. Gentlemen who had remarked
.upon this question on former evenings, state the nature
of the measure to the House.—( Hear, hear.)
THE POST-OFFICE.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then rose, for the purpose o
moving for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the inviola-
bility of letters passing through the Post-office. He
felt that it was a reflection on the system of Govern-
ment under which we lived, as well as a reproach to
our institutions of which we were so proud, that any
Member of that House should be obliged to seek for
the inviolability of his correspondence: In submitting
this motion to the House, he would abstain as much as
possible from everything of individual or of a personal
nature. It was with the system he was going to war,
'lt was a system he felt it his duty to endeavour to de-
stroy. Committees of this House and of the other
House had been appointed during the last session to re-
port what was the state of the law on this subject.
Ali that the Committee of the house of Commons had •
told them was, that the law in 1844 was exactly the
same as it was in the time of Queen Anne, but they did
not tell them what that law was. The House of Lords
had gone one step further, and had told them that the
only way the intention of the law could be explained was,
by the fact that that power was fully -recognised by Act
of Parliament, because it did not give the Secretary of
State the power of detaining letters. They !old them
that the power appeared to have been exercised from
the earliest period' and that it hid been exercised ac-
cording to several Acts of Parliament. That was all
that the House of Lords said in reference to the matter,
admitting that there had been no law. He.would grant
that the practice had obtained, from old usage,
and was recognised by those Acts of Parliament ; but
if they referred to those cases in the Appendix of the
Report of the Commons, they would find that there had
been no such proof that letters had been stopped
in the Post-office, opened, and then sent forward
to the parties who ought to have received them ;
there was no evidence that such .a system of fraud and
forgery had ever been exercised; they were used in
Courts of law as evidence against certain parties. The
law was so different on that point that they
did not allow them to ask where was the warrant
whereby those letters were taken ; it seemed
that they came into the hands of the Government some
way or other, but they would not allow it to be asked
who detained those letters. The first of Vic-
toria, increased the power of the former Act of Par
-
'lament. He had the authority of the highest
men—the highest legal authorities, for saying
that there was no law for the exercise of that power now
made use of. All that was done bitlie Act was to re-
lieve the servant of the Post-office froinn misdemeanor
in detaining ovopening any letters. Melt the legality
of the warrant totally and entirely untouched, just the same
as a constable who produces his warrant is exonerated
from all responsibility as to the legality of that warrant.
The same thing might be said of the orders that were
given for the admission of strangers into the gallery of
that House. If a stranger in that gallery were to be
apprehended, he would produce the order as his protec-
tion. Yet it was clear that the power of admitting
strangers did not exist in that House. Bat admitting
that the Government possessed the power of opening
letters, the question the Hinse had to decide was, what
advantage they had obtained by its exercise. They all
knew the difficulties in which the present Governmenthad
been placed ; and they all knew the ill feeling which had
been created by the exposures in that House. And if
there was ever any benefit derived from this subject, he
would ask any rational and sensible man whether, after
the disclosures which had been made, a man engaged in
a treasonable correspondence would not be an idiot or a
' fool to send that correspondence through the General
Post-office. He said, therefore, after the expOsures
which had taken place, that the value or utility of this
practice had been destroyed. If this system was to be
of any value at all it must be practised in secret.
There was no middle course. They must either stand
by the present system, or abolish it altogether. Why
' should they not expunge from the statute-book this
odious power, if such power existed? Such a power
existed in no other country. One of the articles of the
Belgian Constitution protected the correspondence of
the Belgian people. The power of opening letters
did not exist in the United States, nor in Canada.
It did not exist in France. Monsieur Guizot had de-
clared, in his place in the. French Chamber, that in
law and in fact the correspondence of the French
people was inviolable. Honourable Gentlemen opposite
smiled, but that had been the declaration of the Minister
of Foreign Affairs in France. If correspondence in
this country were violated, there was no redres,, because
nobody was responsible for it. Sir Robert Walpole had
declared that this power ought only to be exercised in
times of great internal danger. From that time down to
the present day the power had been increasing. It had
been used, not o ,ly for criminal warrants, but also for
political purposes. If they confined the system to cri-
minal warrants, he should not have so great an objection
to it: bat that was clearly imp issible. On a former oc-
casion it had been stated that Lord Sidmouth had issued
a great number of warrants for opea;ng letteri. Now.
he (Mr. Duncombe) had had lately a communication
With a banker in the city of London, and he had told
him that a clerk in his service had been guilty of for-
gery, and had absconded. Application was made to
Lord Sidmouth to intercept the letters of the clerk.
Lord Sidmouth declined doing so, saying that he never
issued warrants for opening letters except in cases of
high treason. An application was then made to Lord
Sidmouth for the parties to be allowed to see the address
of the letters, and Lord Sidmouth said he would send an
answer in the evening. He did so, and it was to this
effect—" That he considered the Post-office so sacred
that he would not be a party to allowing the superscrip-
done of any letters to .be seen." Two-thirds of tbewar-
rants issued within the last forty- years had been criminal
warrants; and, in pointof fact,the question resolved itself
inte`this-e=should the Crown have the power of issuing
those warrants? He thought that when the House
looked to the extension of the police and other instru-
ments ef the Executive, it would see that there was no
necessity- for this'. additional "poWeic of opening letters.
He had asked for copies of the warrants that had been