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

TEE SUN, LONDON, FRID y MORNING, FEBRUAR Y 21, 1845.

case
taught,-r)r)of. Some snorting Loris.—(Hear, hear, and
It was time. therefore, it should be known
wh
"' was the law, finj ti-,e execution of
rer,sed. H r.) ,itp:‘or:,,,-; the o•.‘,tin.
Bir R. INGLIS said that although the Speaker had.
Mwith. his niur.l attention, endeavoured t.) upen the
embers of each side in a fair alternation, his quick aed
Impartial eve had net been able to discover whether the
gentleman who rose belonged to the Opposition or to the
supporters of the Government. Ile had called open the
"Imes of gentlemen siring behind the Seeretary cif
State, and he found that they supported the motion.—
'sughter.) A Genth,man on the side of the Opposi-
tion aught the Speaker's eye, and tip., Ilonse was sur-
Wised to find him an advocate of the Right lion. Bara,net.
Member
hal heard the eloquent ,peeeh of his lien. Frietei the
:Sember for Pontylraet, and he roahl not help asking.
Iltn (Mr. Milnesy wh, titer he called that hacking his
'bends ?—(Caught. r.) (Mr. Mines sat inimf diatelv
.14 the back of Sir James Graham.) The best
thelPee Hon
favot r of the Ministry, and against
Member
on. Member for Finsbury, was that of the Hon.
a'!eniber for Sheffield, in whose speech, except the be-
!l:tilling and the end, he entir ly concurred.—(Great.
tighter ) He could agree with his Right lion. Friend
the Member for Edinburgh, that a Member of Perlis-
itl'il.ent Was in a position entitling him to exclusion from
mesa
Privilege of the Secretary of State, which was not
ZerdY a statutable right, but a common-law right, con-
firmed by statute; yet the letters that were opened were
l'ut those of the Right Hon. Gentleman himself,
ullt letters addressed to him by others, for whose
tPriety and regard for the law the Hon. Member could
teLlinswer. Would any one contend that, with such an
er7ll°rily of statute laws as had been shown in this case,
Me the practice of 140 years, the law had been violated?
Istic thought it would almost be absurd to retry the
i'scn of the Committee by a public tribunal, after the
Fn Ilse had deliberately determined that the Committee
.41,1 be secret, and the Honourable Member for
tsbur.Y, who did not make any objection to
e constitution of the former Committee, had
40
le „locus stvidi in asking for another inquiry.
-
wiee were to adopt the Hon. Member's motion, it
ellld amount to an impeachment of the late Secret
teotlllnitiee. It would at the same time involve the
eticillse in a perpetual reiteration of the same inquiry ;
pee,a,s no doubt the same results would be produced, it
eronly tend to keep alive the public excitement on
l ease. There was no country in Europe where the
fonctity of letters was so much studied as in England.
theexemplification of this, an Hon. Member hid given
• kill several illustrations, occurring since the reign of
e„,„..41Y He believed, however, that instances of a more
-o;lemnt date might be given, and in support of this state-
belt he would take leave to relate a story which would
l'ah'"ablY be familiar to many lion. Members, and he
p `Mil therefore content himself by only giving the out-
which would bring it to the minds of those Hon.
eernbers who had preeiously heard it.—(Hear, hear.)
short time ago one of our Secretaries of State for
ene,:eign Affairs desired a British Minister at a certain
C to insist upon certain terms, but intimating that the
nster was not to press them at the risk of incurring
4 a
received
between the two Powers. The S,•cretary State
an answer by ordinary post, in n /Itch. the Mi-
fniste. r stated that he had made the communication to the
oreign Power, intimating that, unless he received a
ou
rable answer within four-and-twenty hours he
1114 demand his passport. The British Minister
ewthat his letter would be opened at the foreign post-
ethe' and, in a subsequent communication, he intimated
the hours
afGovernent.. The res
on ult was that in less team
e ter the m
communicati had been dispatched
the
-illaessenger reached the British Minister consenting to
th! required coneessioils.—(Laughter.) He repeated,
f), the sanctity of the Post office r, as no where so
.rtich observable as in England. Ile admitted that Eng-
• Cal'night to be the refuge of foreigners ; but he main
ned that they were only entitled to protection so long
they did not convert this oasis into a volcano itip.n
e t'r countries.—(Laughter.) Did any honest. man
"'plain that his lectern lied been opener! ?—(Hear.)
/4n HON. MEMBER—Yes ; the lion. Member for
tn,bery.
eegir 11. INGLIS excepted the Hon. Member for
°sb because he did not admit that his let-
o iter,had been opened. At all events, if they
~4 been opened there was no evidence to prove
o:(iear.) Letters addressed to him might have been
7", for which he was not responsible, but he did not
Ove that any letter written by the Hon. Member had
ti violated. It might be the misfortune of the Hon.
eti:lnber, as was the case with others, to have some con-
ekalents in whom they themselves had no confidence.
sQine of these constituents might think proper to
oitr°BB him in a manner which all must deprecate.-
4,44,1% hear.) Any man who held the report of the Se-
ite,onarnittee in his hand must be satisfied that it
the eiently exculpated the Government in respect to
eoa Ilse they ha" made of this power. The law and the
ehestitution of the country permitted them to exercise
epaaP'3wer in particular instances, and he thought there
ke.sufficient justification for their doing so in the
eeogeular case of Mazzini. It was, therefore, not
1-10:88LrY for him to support the motion of the
th,--• Member for Finsbury. Nor could he consent to
lueeeltinendment of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, for
l,Q,nlel agree with the proposition that a Parliamentary
Iket!'ege exempted an Hon. Member from any charge of
y'cular misconduct. He was therefore not prepared
leia`lte either for the motion of the Hon. Member for
eteeB,",rY, or for the amendment which proposed to ex-
ker,ealetnbers of Parliament, and particularly the Hon.
ope-Zusr for Finsbury, from the operation of the power of
11'1g letters now in the hands of the Government.
lite:* BERNAL thought that the Parliamentary pri-
ne Possessed by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was
114,ted• That privilege was based upon a resolution in
and sanctioned by Sir H. Walpole and Mr. Pelham.
NI St resolution decided that it was a breach of the pri-
lie:res of Parliament if the letters of any Member of
• tier; House were detained or opened without the sane-
ad of the Secretary of State. If, therefore, the warrant
Seer not been signed by the Right Hon. Baronet the
ueeetarY for the Home Department, the question
-the had nothing to do with the question before
bee'r ,:feu,se• The character and respectability of a coo self but
House was of great importance, not only
tlar:f hut the constituents he represented, and hence he
to ,ignt it was necessary that an inquiry should be made
Of thedicate the Hon. Member for Finsbury in the eyes
iv es e British public. His letters had been opened, and it
that hstlPpoled that it was justified by the supposition
sa was holding intercourse with persons not only
etep e
eie!'kd, but who were contaminated by their previous
• 'pee-,lati"ns. This was the only justification for the
stita'ng of an Hollow-deli, Member', letters, and the eon-
thi„,n:eY of the Lion. Gentleman might take a technical
nrgt-:`,!"1 to his sitting in that House. They might
• tre„ 'llat a man that would lend himself to seditious and
B,:uahle designs was not fit foe. a seat in that House._No.'s °R., therefore, could be prepared to justify the
wards that had been pursued by the Government to-
title: the Hon. Gentleman, and he was, therefore, en-
the to call for an in ter If the warrant. for opening
ti°n• Member', ).
ight
krue, Ilan, Baronet the Secretary for the Home De-
or fioel,, it would be competent for the lloim.Memb.er
bar of lunrY to summon the Post-office authorities to the
the~o tit Rouse, and, of course, be dealt with according
the eal:_ature and extent of the offence. As to the law of
bereae; they were not in a position to discuss that,
tfid n Lena m.,tion wool,: be made upon that point. lie
tat„, now whether tti' House of Comm ins would
I`)n te •,
71
atmiwk. •h seam(' of Anne, or whether t.,e) won, t
ee the state of .public opinion in 1845, as
'-'ll to that of 1745. logee: a large question,
itul ? hoped it would fully discussed at
't Ponied. 11,-was not prepared to say that the
• 0 eCo te, n ttee had neglected to perform their duty.
ally emtrary, he felt disposed to think that they kid
At uebieved tee object for which they were appointed.
that ths •
eune . time, however, he could not help thinking
thee
tth! 'night have communicated to the House whe-
lietti.: Government had exercised due discretion in
eehetileerthis power into force. The report did not prove
tt)e vet. ertnboct.Milnfisters had exceeded the limitsn of
Baronet had
reoci guilt of .h_oweyer, the Right Hon.
en a an'illegal act, there was a sufficient re-
. I.,t)tenio Court of common law ; and the House of
411, h Os, therefore, was not the place to seek redress.
sttieedePed, therefore, that somebody would move an
Ite_erabemeefeotetbelimit the inquiry to the case of the Hon.
"er ha, r kinsbury and he believed the Hon. few"Mem-
t‘,,' a right to demand that inquiry. He did not
the Tsay that the Right lion. Baronet the first Lord
bury of ir:e,nsury had accused the Hon. Member for Fins-
nlB42 concerned in the treasonable proceedings
asdae. _ nut certainly the language which he held last
,itro,l7l,lld the expressions which fell from the Hon. and
prosig Member tor Bute, were sufficient to justify his
',:Atut Cufz that the Hon. Member for Finsbury had a
;2. aotiu pand an inquiry. He regretted that the
a
, for hLearned Member for Bute was not in his
0111444 back
always
objected to saying anything behind
int' the II But still he could not avoid remarking
TtetnpetateOlL and Learned Member had been very
The Hon. _ to the language used the previous evening.
eeoospipacy4l:l Learned Member referred to a time when
4°
ed. Re as rile, and schemes of murder being con-
theseoo at,te__lleixed the Hon. Member's name up with
.fi Jae ]tents, and the only conclusion that could be
• tio was. that the Seer( tary of State suspected that
Fr%e nourable
Member for Finsbury was con-
or the ,-ake'd' o,..ese treasonable designs.—(Hear, hear.)
wo friend t his own tranquillity and peace of mind,
;_ioti;lidort;leeorinththoeeth(ei Right Ilon. Gentleman himself, he
him not to stifle the investigation, or
Lerated bY th charge which had been again and again
tit what would e Ron. Member for Finsbury. If he did
- • Wear, hear he the effect produced out of doors ?
. ;_7llF,,__,,`_ler) The public mind must act upon that
else t, eeeen The
and character of the House must, in
"i_l, pol'i'trenaloo the respect paid to it out of doors. Were
:b,o0;114 still say that
of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he
which he no,, . the most insidious advice which
he'enuuriead into his ear, the most dangerous counsel
bu:tigation Possibly follow, would be to refuse the
y•---(tielrn?vv sought by the lion. Member for Fins-
theeactual ~eeficar.) lie would not, indeed, vote for
t;l lin. guu )ri ot' that Hon. Member. In that respect
lember for Fin b
Ptred the se s ury and himself had agreed
le to 'Line course. What they were pre-
(Niro Propose
4ble wheth was a committee simply to
- Member or the correspondence of the Honour-
41(tieerri %,lintrahaeidbobeen detained and opened, and, if so,
mitten 114) an ex, .11tY:—(Hear, hear.) He would not
feithe:, nor v‘.oldold thneation of the composition of the Com-
cnter into the question of' national
ca th:"G" oofetrten,d_in!scroeftion which ought to be ebserveil
efforts waoulfirlebee
tsti lliirbneirtta,dl,
eelltlattird
3% e tbtai enlightenedni,
jaileee he'imeneet taondthe
ce for the lion. Member who al-
n
he utni.
Member
to
te" einher ,grieved. He called upon that
t4t4tio: finally defec not to relax in his efforts ; and if
'1 that he would r aced
in his attempts to secure inves-
who
we :use
th_eecommend him to summon to the bar
ter,.....reharn,e`!: Persons belonging to the Post-of
(Bear, with the offence of opening his let-
. 11010,,,,_ear.)
"a4W lex •
said the Hon. Member who had

just sat (hewn had made, u,1121, a lucid and clear state-
ment of hi, arnument, but co,fes.ed that he could not
upport the motion of the lion. Member for Finsbury,
and his ab!e Ines in fact be considered as having
en delis', rt,d in some conjectural motion not vet in
existence. In dtealit,g with this question he (Mr. Borth-
wick) wag not influenced by any Government connexion,
as he had never been encumbered by .any Government
help.—(Laughter.) There were, he believed, faults on
both sides.

" Intra nturos peccatur et extra."
it .ppeared thfit the pnictice now complained of had ex-
isted in its present state from the earliest period. He
was asked to give ti vote which would have the effect,
on the one hand, of fixing on the Committee a charge of
,a,ivenes, and on the other of fixing upon the Right
Non. Gentleman a chart which he t.ought even the
Hon. Member for Finsbury must be sorry that he had
m, de and unwilling to repeat. In his conscience he
(Mr. Borthwick) believed that the Government had
never opened the Hon. Member's letters; and if ?key had
done so, it would be easy to bring the matter to an issue
by calling before the House the officers of the Post-
office. Such being the views which he entertained on
the subject, he must be excused from voting for th-:
motion before the House.

Mr. C. BULLER then rose and addressed the House
as follows :—Mr. Speaker, Sir, I think the most
sup I fluous sentence I ever heard in this House—and
that is saying a great deal—(Laughter)—was the closing
sentence of the speech of my Hon. Friend the Member
for Weymouth, which was a vehement exhortation to
my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury not to relax
in his efforts on this subject. Because I think we may
gather from experience that he is not likely to relax
when he has a particular object in view, such as that
which my Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury now
entertains. I must confess that perhaps I may break in
a little on the gravity of this debate, when I declare
that after the fullest consideration I could give this sub-
ject, I can hardly look very gravely on the question
which is now presented to the House. That there
are grave questions connected with this matter
there cannot be the slightest doubt. I think that the
House has responded to the feeling of the country.
That the existence of this power in the hands of the
Minister is a matter of grave consideration, no man, I
think, will deny. I will put by that subject for the
present, as we are not met at all to discuss the policy
of the law as it is said at present to exist. On that, Sir,
no man entertains a stronger opinion than I do—that a
power so worthless is inconsistent with the security of
liberty—inconsistent with domestic comfort, and incon-
sistent with national merality.—(Cheers.) I put by that
great question now, as the only question before us is—
whether her Majesty's Government have made out a
case that they are not chargeable with the invention of
a new power—that they have acted according to the pre-
cedent of their predecessors in exercising this power of
opening letters. Admitting that the only ques-
tion is whether it has been exercised in an
honourable or discreditable manner, I must confess,
Sir, that until yesterday I felt deeply and very
painfully on this subject. I did feel that some, hone
put tiun rested on the conduct of her Miajeety's G overn-
mete with respeci to the use made ..f the letters which
had been opened, an 1 of the consequences and results
from :his conduct of the Post-office ; and I must confess
that the occasion of such conduct I never saw, and I de-
clare to you iuperfect sincerity that I should have felt just
as much horror at finding it proved against those Gentle-
men with whom lam in the habit of acting. lam glad,
Sir, that the answer of the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet yesterday relieved us from the most pain-
ful part of the suspicion which was excited
ageinst a particular man. Now, the question re-
solve:, itself into one of opening the letters of
my Honourable Friend the Member for Finsbury ;
and I must say, Sir, that I think it is a question very
well deserving the attention, both of the Hon. Gentleman
who has had his letters opened, and of this House.
Now the Noble Lord, the Cil.irruan of the Committee,
was pleased to say that it was a " prurient" curiosity
that would lead one to do this. Now, lam not very
curioas—(Laughter)—but I declare that one of the most
justifiable cle,sti. Its that ..ne eiaild risk in the world of
any man suspected of opening one's letters, would be
eteill te say, " Pray, Sir, did you open my letters or
not?"—(Laughter.) I don't cline it an idle question.—
(Continued tcughter.) I think the man who wishes
not to have his letters opened, has a right
to have an explanstiien when he finds those
letters have been opened. I think the :
pnbli-
have a right to know—and I think the public are deeply
interested in this matter. The secrecy of the correspon-
dence of Members of Parliament is of great importance
—first, they are the representatives of the people (and
as we represent the people, our correspondence may
turn on matters highly important to the public, if you do
not guard them, and especially guard their privileges ;
there are persons whose confidence and correspondence
might be violated by an unscrupulous Government.) As
respects this House, this is a very important question.
For myself, it doe• not concern me very much—although
I cannot go so far as the Hon. Baronet the Member for
Oxford, who said, that it did not matter if the Govern-
ment saw all the letters that he wrote, or that were written
to him. I can only say that if my letters
were opened by the Government, and they read them,
they would be doing more than those to whom they
were addressed had ever been able to do —(Laughter.)
I trust that the House will not look on this as a mis-
taken assumption on my part. At any rate, the question
of opening letters of Members of Parliament is one well
worthy of inquiry by this House. I say that when this
simple question was raised—when the justifiable curiosity
of the public and the House was excited on this question
—I do think everything would have gone right if the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of state for the Home
Department had been enabled to give a civil answer to
a plain question.—(Laughter.) The question was asked
whether he had opened the letters of my Honourable
Friend or not ? but the Right Hon Baronet has really a
most morbid passion for unpopularity, which he takes
the most uejustifiable means to gratify. I thought he
had had enough of this—(Continued laughter)—without
going out of his way, and that he would think that there
Wes no necessity of courting an unnecessary unpopularity.
But when that question was asked, instead of simply
answering the question, he put himself into an attitude
of offended dignity, and with an air like that of Socrates
to his judges, assumed a tone of injured innocence, and
declared that public duty would not allow him to reveal
secrets which no force could extract from him. I don't
think, Sir, that he is right there. I think we shall get
at the secret, and I think my Hon. Friend the Member
for Finsbury will get some explanation. The Right
lion. Baronet assumed preci-ely tile seine tone and the
.ante dignity when he detirial his deteraliaation oil
the grounds of public duty no:. to make any statement
or answer, and the consequence was, that my Hon.
Friend the Member for Finsbury stuck to it, and
we got the Committee last session, and everything was
explained. I must say that, taking the tone which is
generally taken on this side of the House, that of a
sincere friend to the Government,—(Laughter)—l do
Viink the Right Hon. Baronet would have spared him-
self a great deal of anxiety, and a great deal of trouble,
and would have spared this House a great deal of tiine
and trouble, if he had done at first what I feel perfectly
convinced he will be obliged to do in the end. Well,
noe, I am surprised at the Hon. Member for Tamworth,
b cause I thought he was more sensible in this matter.
I thought he wou!d have taken the matter in dudgeon,
and would hive ewe forward. cud said to the Right
11..11. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department—
" The eeet'esean has asked a civil question, why d
you not Ore him an answer?"—(Great laughter.)
But that was not done ; hut, in fact, the Itieht Hole
Baronet had rather made the matter worse by his speech
Isuesdav night, because he went into a long explanation
as to the difficulty in which the Government were placed
—of the heavy responsibility to which the Government
is subjected—of the dreadful scenes, which occurred in
1842, and of the great nec ssity for the Government
using all the power with which they were invested in
such emergencies • and he read some dreadful passages
from speeches of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton
on that occasion. I happen to recollect that debate, but
Ido not recollect that to which the Right Honourable
Baronet referred in 1735.—(Laughter.) I do not pro-
fess to do so.—(Renewed laughter.) I recollect, however,
in 184'e when all these dreadful things occurred, that the
Right Hon. Baronet used to say—there is a great deal
of exaggeration—there is not so much danger as •was
anticipated, and that we, Members of Parliament, might
go home to our grouse shooting, and our other publis
duties—(Laughter)—with perfect safety. He now comes
forward and tells us of these dreadful machinations.
But what necessity there is for referring to that, to
account for the opening of my Hon. Friend's letters, I
do not know. The Right Hon. Gentleman said there was
one dreadful thing—that of little children running little
pins into bits of work.—(Laughter.) That was one
passage which the Right Hon. Baronet quoted. It was
left to be inferred what all the other dreadful machina-
tions were. I cannot conceive what right he had for open-
ing the letters of my Hon. Friend the Member fe rFinsbury
in that emergency, unless he could be connected with the
dialoolical intention of the little children.—(Laughter.)
Therefore the Right Hon. Baronet's speech really has
made the charge worse, and I really do not think when
he comes soberly to reflect on the matter, that he can help
thinking that be has not much assisted the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in
this matter, and that he has not said anything to justify
his opening my Hon. Friend's letters. The Right Hon.
Gentleman has stated a new difficulty. The Queen was
called in. The evidence given before the Committee
has been given by Privy Councillors who before they
could give that evidence were obliged to go
and ask her Majesty for leave to give that
evidence. The evidence could not be published
without the Queen's leave. Well, now, what was the
meaning of the Queen's leave in the case? I take it that
if her Majesty's leave were asked, she would consult
her responsible advisers, as to whether she might give
her leave or not.—(Cheer:.) I take it that when the
Right Hon. Baronet went to her, she would ask his ad-
vice as to what course she should take ; therefore. if
the Right lion. Baronet's mouth is hermetically sealed,
he would cause her Majesty's to be closed also.—
(Laughter.) Her Majesty would feel that the Right
Hon. Baronet's popularity was one of the great bulwarks
of her throne—(Laughter)—and she would wish him to
withhold any explanation on an act like this.
I therefore think the difficulty about the Queen's name
Might be got over, if the Right Hon. Baronet wished it.
I like to bring these things into a practical shape. What
has the Right Hon. Baronet got by his silence on this
question ? Did that clear the character of the Right
Hon. Gentleman in the eyes of the country ? Does
everybody say " Oh, from what has passed in the House
of Commons, it is perfectly clear that Sir James Graham
is not to blame?" Everybody, I think, says exactly the
contrary. The Right Hon. Baronet might have stopped
the who'e of what has taken place by saying " I never
did open the letters." - I do not think that his being,
night after night, thus attacked on this subject, can be
exceedingly pleasant. He certainly comes off with the
worst of it. I don't wish to hurt his feelings, but I gene-
rally find that he comes off second best when attaAted

my lion. Friend. He generally brings the Right Hon.
Baronet into the dirt.—(Laughter.) And dirt it is.—
(Cheers.) Novo really, as a practical man, I would
suggest that the very best course would be to acknow-
ledge it at once. I must say, that I think some blame
rests wiih the Committee in this matter. I think the
Committee would have spared us a good deal of trouble
if they had satisfied our very just curiosity on this sub-
ject, and hive given us mot,- evidence. They ought to
have told us less about Edward the Second and the
Commonwealth, and a little more about opening the
letters at the present time. I should be exceedingly
glad, theref ,re, if this ma ter could be allowed to end in
the alggestion of my Honourable Friend the Member
for Montrose. I think the evidence ought to
he laid before the House, but, as that has
nut b.,en the case, I feel it to he my duty, if no other
motion is proposed, to vote with zny Hon. Friend the
Member for Finsbury ; but if any amendment should be
proposed, such as that which has been suggested, I shall
be happy to support it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. S. 'HERBERT said he did not think that the
manner in which this subject had been brought forward,
nor the tone which had accompanied it, nor the manner
in which that tone had been received, was credit tble to
the feelings of that House. He was, however, much gra-
tified at the alteration which had taken place in the tone
of the debate that evening. He alluded particularly
to the speech of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, because
that speech was not only the speech of an honourable
man, but of a generous opponent.—(Cheers.) Although
the length to which he went would not meet, perhaps,
the support of the majority of that House, yet he thought
the spirit in which the lion. Gentleman had addressed
the House, considering the position in which the Right
lion. Baronet was placed, was creditable to him as an
()ppm oat. The more they got into this debate the more
did tl,e motion appear unworthy. Every Hon. Gentle-
man disagreed with it, and suggested an alteration. But
that which surprised him most was, that the proposed
modification of the motion was even more objectionable
than time motion as it originally stood. It would be re-
collected that the House had unanimously resolved that
the Committee which was appointed last session should
be a secret one. No objection could be taken to the
composition of the Committee, as five out of the
nine gentlemen composing it were political op-
ponents of the Right Honourable Baronet. Nine
gentlemen of high honour were appointed to con-
duct the inquiry, whose verdict was certainly entitled to
the respect of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, and the.
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, said
that there were no lawyers on the Committee—(feeling,
he supposed, a little professional susceptibility on the
subject)—(Laughter)— who might conduct a searching
investigation, and extract information from the witnesses
by the moral torture of cross-examieation. Well, but
there were lawyers on the Lords' Committee, and he did
not hesitate to say, that the report of the Lords' Com-
mittee was a more full acquittal of the Right Hon.
Gentleman than that of the Commons' Committee.—

(Hear, hear.) But the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Edinburgh said that lawyers were excluded
by that Hoti,,e, and not by the other, and he
said he could not conceive, but the whole object
was to exclude the - Honourable Member for
Finsbury from the Committee. But in the other House
the Noble Lord who brought forward the accusation
there had the good taste and sense of decency not to ask
to be an accuser and at the same time a judge.—
(Cheers.) How did the Committee set forth their verdict?

Having all the case before them, having the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel), the Noble Lord, and other per-
sons who were Members of previous Governmeats be-
fore them, who held this office, on which the responsibi-
lity in these matters rested, who made full and unre-
served revelations to them, those being confirmed by the
Right llon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, who stated that he laid before them
every warrant he had ever signed—(Hear)—in-
eluding that (if such existed) of which he could have
no knowledge—of which the House could have no
knowledge—issued for the examination of the corre-
spondence of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and for
this they had only the hare assertion of the Hon. Mem-
ber himself, who came down to that House and asked
for a Committee to prove it—the Committee having the
facts stated by all those witnesses before them, came to
their determination:—The lion. Gentleman had said
that there was a warrant fabricated in the case of
Mazzini. The Hon. Baronet stated, on his honour, that
such was not the fact.
Mr:DUNCOMBE--1 never said that it was fabri-
cated.

Mr. S. HERBERT would be sorry to attribute to the
on. Member anything he did not say. He understood

the Hon. Gentleman to say so, but perhaps he was mis-
taken. The Right lion. Baronet had stated that every
warrant he had signed had been submitted to the Com-
mittee—the reasons upon which each had been issued.
The Committee, with those facts, told them—what?
Why, that the power had never been exercised from per-
sonal or party motives—(Cheers)—and that in every
case it was exercised with an earnest desire to maintain
the tranquillity of the country and to promote the ends
of justice.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Read the report of the Commons'
Committee.
Mr. S. HERBERT—The Commons' Committee re-
ported that there was a difference of opinion with regard
to some cases.—(Opposition cheers.) It was easy to
judge after the fact. The Committee went on to state
that they had no reason to doubt that the Secretary of
State was guided by no other motives than an anxious
desire to preserve the public peace.—(Hear, hear.)
After a full investigation before the Committee,
and after their verdict was pronounced in favour of the
Right Hon. Baronet, it was hard that their verdict was
now sought to be impugned. He did not think the
Hon. Gentleman was desirous of investigating the truth.
—(" Oh, oh," and cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to be animated with a feeling of personal
animosity, and appeared as if he sought condemnation at
all hazards, and not the elucidation of the truth.—(Loud
cheers.) He did not say he came forward as an advo-
cate of the public good, that the exercise of this power
was dangerous—thatit was incompatible with the liberty
of the subject, and that no political expediency could
counterbalance its disadvantages, and the evils at-
tending its exercise. No. He did not put
his motion on any such ground, but asked for a Com-
mittee to inquire into what there had been already an
inquiry upon.—(Hear, hear.) What did they want to
know ? Not that the cort4 spondence of private families
should not be revealed. There was no evidence wanted
upon that. No, but en inquiry was asked as to the
conduct of his Right lion. Friend, who was standing at
rt disadvantage—who hail his hands tied up, and ex-
posed to interrogatories, which he was bound not to
answer.—(Cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, the
. Member for Edid burgh, and the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, in particular said, that a civil question had
been asked, and that the Right Hon. Baronet ought to
• reply to it. Why, it seemed to him, that baseness,
meanness, and falseness were in-inuated in such lan-
guage.—(Cheers.) If the Right Honourable Baronet
were once to answer such a question, where was it
to .stop?—(lieur, hear.) Hone was answered, nine others
might get up and ask the same question, and where was
the secrecy then ?—(Hear, hear.) If it was considered
that this power and the odium which attached to it
ought to be done away with, that was a plain and in-
telligible proposition which was easily understood, and
upon it he would give no opinion. Most ingenious ar-
guments had been its, d on both sides of the question,
and the arguinkntation which might be used upon it
seined to him inexhaustible. But that was a different
question from the pour personal question, from the poor
personal caw now before the House.—(Cheers.) With
regard to what had fallen from the Noble Lord the
liember for Newark (Lord J. Manners), it seemed to
him (Mr. S. Herbert) that the Noble Lord had misun-
derstood the Right lion. Baronet at the head of the
Government, in supposing that .he made it a ques-
tion of confidence or no confidence.—(Hear, hear.)
The Government had disposed of that, when
they consented to send the matter to a Committee.
The Government did not ask for confidence, all they
wanted was fair nlay.—(Cheers.) After the question of
guilty or not guilty had-been put to the Committee, and
after they gave their verdict of not guilty, it was unfair
and ungenerous to rip up the subject anew—(Cheers)—
nut for the purpose of bringing public opinion to bear
on the question, as to whether this power should exist
or not, but for the purpose of exciting public odium
against the Right Hon. Baronet—(Cheers)—not for
the public advantage, but to gratify some personal spite.
It was a safe opportunity to strike at a man who bad
his hands tied—it was a courageous and chivalrous pro-
ceeding!—(Loud cheers.) If they believed the gentle-
men who sat on the Committee—if they believed them
honest men, and that they honestly discharged their
duties, he asked them to stand by them.—(Hear, hear.)
If they did not, then let them appoint another Committee.
But there was no question raised as to the honesty of the
Committee. The whole object was to expose the Right
Hon. Baronet to unpopularity— to have public opinion
inflamed—to ask questions which could not be answered
—to excite public odium against a person who
could not defend himself.—(Clieers.) He was confident
the House would not be a party to such proceedings,—
(Hear, hear.) The House would be ready to discuss the
questien as to the expediency or not of retaining or
quashing this power ; but, after the Committee had
given their verdict of not guilty on the question pro-
posed to them, that House, he was sure, wouldinot lead
itself to an invidious—cowardly he was going to say—
but he would say, to an invidious and personal persecu-
tion.—(Loud. cheers.)
Lord HOWICK said he acknowledged, with the
House, that the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down, was an exceedingly powerful and able
one, and proved that he would be a valuable accession to
the Parlia,.-nent of which he lately became a Member.—
(Hear.) But able as that speech was, he did not think
it ought to irduce the House to pass by altogether, with-
out further inquiry, the subject submitted to their notice.
His Rig t lion. Friend the Member for Edinburgh ex-
pressed opinion that, though he objected to the mo-
tion as it stood, there was ample ground for an in-
quiry, limited strictly to the opening of the letters
of his • Honourable Friend, the Member for Finsbury.
'Throughout the, debate so much concurrence had been
expressed on that opinion, not only on that, but on the
other sit -to of the House, that he thought it was expe-
dient tb at the question should be narrowed to that point.;
and th,!refore it was that he shared in the opinion of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, and he should take the
liberty of submitting an amendment to the House, the
object of which would be to narrow the inquiry to that
point, He took this course very much on the grounds
that 'had been put forward by his Right Hon. Friend.
The 'motion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, though
desiy;nedly or not, inflicted some degree of blame on the
Corarnittee. Now, for his own part, he must confess,
that he found it difficult to find any cause for that
blcule. He thought that the Committee had acted most
-honourably and most fairl-- that it had. in the strictest
men se of the word, done its duty, and performed the
task allotted to it by the House. He agreed with his
Rigid Hon. Friend that there was no necessity to have

any further information upon this point. He joined in
condemning the practice, as it had existed for the last
two hundred years, of Secretaries of State opening let-
ters e ithout sufficient cause being shown. He agreed
with those who esserted that the Secretary of State should
have the power of opening letters where it was supposed
that they related to the safety of the State, but he ob-
jected to the practice of
,resealing letters in order that
the parties should be ignorant that their correspondence
was kno vn to the Government.—(Hear, hear.) He
thought such a system partook greatly of the character
of treachery and deeeit.—(Hear, hear.) He did not im-
pute those qualities to any particular Government. He
believed that latterly almost every Government hod
adopted such a coursz. But let them say what they
would, they would never induce the moral sense of the
country to permit the exercise of a power of
so extensive a description. Whatever advantages
might arise from it they could never compensate for
the stain that was cast upon the country by the adop-
tion of such a course. He was prepared to condemn
the continuance of this practice, and he hoped that be•
fore the session was brought to a close his Hon Friend
the Member for Finsbury would follow out the work he
had so well begun, and by resolutions of that House
stigmatise and put an end to that which ought to be got
rid of.—(Hear, hear.) No Act of Parliament was ne-
cessary on the subject. There was nothing in the stn•
tute that recognised the propriety of forging seals or al-
tering postmarks.—(Hear, hear.) There was nothing
in the statute that approved of that, and if a resolution
of that House was passed against it, there would be no
danger of a repetition of that practice. There was a
question, however, that had not been reported upon by
the Committee of last year—a question of serious and
vital importance, and one that required further inquiry.
Ris Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury distinctly
stated that letters directed to him had been opened at
the Post-office—(Beer, hear)—and his Hon. Friend had
also stated that he was prepared to make that assertion
good if the House would only give him an opporiamity
doing so.—(Hear.) Upon that fact, whether it was true
or not, the Committee of last year had not reported.
Now, that surely was a point that required to be eluci-
dated, and one that ought not to be allowed to rest in
mystery. If it was true that the letters that had been
addressed to his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury
had been opened, in his judgment there had been a
great abuse of official power, and of the resolutions of
the House. Nothing could jestify the opening of letters
addressed to his Hon. Friend. It had been admitted
by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, that although
they claimed the power, it was one that ought to be ex •
ercised with the greatest reserve and delicacy, and the
use of which was only justified where the safety of the
State was at stake. Was there anything—was any
Hon. Member prepared to state that there was any-
thing—of so serious a nature in the correspondence of
hie Hon. Friend? The proceedings in many respects of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, both in and out of that
House, were very far from meeting with his
approbation—(Hear, hear)—but he could never
for one moment suppose that he was one 'who would
countenance insurrection or violence.—(Hear, hear.)
But then it was said that it was not letters written by
the lion. Member for Finsbury, but those that had been
written to him that had been opened. That circum-
stance, in his opinion, made no difference in the circum-
stances of the case, because if those letters were calcu-
lated to throw light upon treasonable views, her Majesty's
Government must have supposed--knowing what they
did of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—that imme-
diately upon his receiving them he would have made them
known to her Majesty's Government. If those letters had
been opened the facts of that opening cast an imputation
upon his Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, which
he had a right to have removed.—(Hear, hear.) The
gravity of the case had been greatly enhanced by the
facts that they were the letters of a Member of Parlia-
ment that had been opened. It was said that there was
no breach of privilege in this case, because there was a
warrant. Now, he (Lord Howick) fearlessly asserted
that there was a breach of privilege, even if there was a
warrant, unless the Secretary of State showed sufficient
reason for the issuing of that warrant.—(Hear, hear.) If
there was no necessity for such a warrant, then
there was clearly a breach of privilege—(Heer, hear)—
for in his opinion all parties ought to have the opportu-
nity of bringing their grievances before Members Par-
liament,without subjecting them to the prying eye of the
Secretary of State.—(Hear, hear.) It was necessary that
Members should have the opportunity of communicating
witheothers their views of the state of public affairs with
out control. ThiS was in his opinion as necessary as the
liberty of speech itself—(Hear, hear)—and it was in his
opinion a dangerous doctrine to say that Ministers
should have the power of looking into the
letters with impunity of their political opponents.
Were they to exercise this power in mystery and
secrecy, and to be the judges of when they were to be
at liberty to look into the letters of their political oppo-
nents ?—(Hear, hear.) If he thought a Committee
necessary, at the beginning of this debate, he thought so
still more since he had heard the speech of the Hon.
Member for Bute. The House was not so full now as
it was then, but he would appeal to the Hon. Gentlemen
who heard that speech, whether that Hon. and Learned
Gentleman did not lay down the doctrine, that it was ne -
cessary to look into the letters of Members of Parliament
if they happened to have what was considered dangerous
correspondence. He had laid down this doctrine in a
manner which, if it received the consent of that House,
would be liable to the gravest and most dangerous abuses.
He trusted the House would not open the door to such
great abuses. He thought it very possible, if this rule
were adopted, that any gentleman who called for a
reform of the public institutions, and who might attempt
to excite public opinion against the Government of
the day, might become the object of suspicion to
that Government. He thought he remembered a time
when the letters of the Right Hon. Baronet the Home
Secretary himself, under such a system, might have been
in considerable danger.—(Great cheering and laughter.)
At least, he remembered, in those days when he (Lord
Howick) was much younger than he was at present, and
more eager in politics, that he thought the Right Hon.
Baronet—as, for instance, in his famous speech about
the "birds of prey"—.did direct popular feeling, rather
than public reason, against the Government of that day,
more strongly than was either prudent or creditable.—
(Loud cheering and laughter.) He was sure that the
Right Hon. Baronet's present colleague, who was at that time
Secretary of State, would not have exercised that power, but
he thought had there been a Minister who would have done so,
in 1830, when the country was getting into a serious state of
disturbance, the correspondence of the Right Hon. Baronet
would have been well worth an occasional inspection.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not doubt that in former
years, the supporters of Catholic emancipation and of reform
were considered not less dangerous than those who now sup-
ported the People's Charter. No doubt the men who sup-
ported the measures that had since been adopted with such in-
finite advantage to the country, and now met with such general
assent—he had no doubt that had those principles then pre-
vailed, at the Post-office their letters would have been opened.
Why this was actually the case at the time of the American
war, when the correspondence of the leaders of the Opposition
in that House was never safe. Let them look at the letters of
Burke, recently published, and they would see frequent re-
ferences by the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord North.
and others, to their having something of im-
portance to communicate, but that knowing the state
of the Post-office they must defer it till they had a safer op-
portunity. And that which had existed might exist again.
lie objected to the principle that the letters of Members of
Parliament might be inspected ; and so far from thinking that
the letters of persons who had come under the censure of the
law ought to be opened, he thought the letters of those persons
tooungahtte particularly
afterto b
theeyp raciatto.e c ted
out.
oHoef ought
suooli,t i
ft h otshee
yu nfor -con-
sidered they had been unjustly treated, ought of all others to
have the clearest right to have their letters respected. He
thought Majesty'sMinistersand one
callingight havefo r
and reprehension of the House ; but it did not follow, because
he had confidence in them as men of honour, that all future Ali-
mtbheee n
serious guilty
notice of a
grave
nitters would be the same. It was a constitutional principle
error he r
0f
judgment,
that Parliament ought not to place that extreme confidence in
any men holding the reins of power—they ought not to give
into any hands a power so liable to abuse. Even on the
slightest suspicion of such abuse the interference of Par-
liament was absolutely necessary to the due exercise of a con-
trol over the Executive Government, and ought to be inquired
into in a searching manner. Though he did not wish to make
this subject a subject of attack on those no
must say that it was a. that w in office, yet he
subject of inquiry t they ought not to
pass by. They ought in this respect to act on the old and
wise maxim, to take things in time, and stop the beginnings of
evil ; let them arrest the mischievous principle in the outset;
let them mark their opinion of the subject by appointing a
Committee to inquire into what the facts were. Let them by
that step mark their opinion that the letters of Members of
Parliament ought not thus to be opened. The amendment he
was now about to place in the hands of the Speaker was this :
—" That it having been alleged by an Hon. Member of that
House, in his place, that. letters addressed to him have been
detained at the Post-office, and opened before they were de-
iisvered, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire if the alle-
gation is tree, and if so, en what authority, or on what grounds
such detention and such opening at the Post-office of such
letters were sanctioned." the House would observe that in
this amendment he did not assume the truth of the allegation,
nor in any way censure the Committee of last year, and he
hoped and trusted that this amendment would not be objected
to by the House.
Mr. WORTLEY explained.
The SPEAKER having put the original question and the
amendment,
Lord Salloox and Mr. D'lsaaru rose together, but there
was a general call from both sides of the House for Air.
D'lsraeli.
Mr. D'ISRAELI said he rose to second the amendment of
the Noble Lord opposite, because its intention was first
shadowed forth by the Noble Lord below him, and received, he
believed, the sympathy of the House. That amendment con-
siderably narrowed the question which they were now for the
second night debating; but that question had before been nar-
rowed to limits much smaller by the Right Hon. Gentleman
who last addressed the House from the Treasury benches. That
Right Hon. Gentleman had narrowed the question to a personal
view between the Hon. Member for Finsbury and the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State. If
that, indeed, were the real state of the case, he, for
one, should regret ever having interfered with it ; he was sure
he was only speaking the sentiments of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman the Member for Hull when he was expressing these
feelings. But if this were true—and he was as little inclined
to credit it as some other assertions which were equally mon-
strous and equally current—it was only an additional illustra-
tion of a great truth that many historians had celebrated, that
from slight and personal causes great public benefits have
sometimes been derived, or great principles vindicated.
The Honourable Member for Sheffield, who addressed
the House early in the evening, had disclaimed all
intention of touching what he seemed to think ought
sot to form any material part of this discussion. lie knew not
whether the Hon. Gentleman was right in the position he had
assumed, but what he could not forget was, that her Majesty's
Government had proved themselves to be of the contrary
opinion by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister him-
self, in his complete and elaborate defence ;--complete, • he
meant, so far as it touched upon each division of the subject ;
both in its legal character and personal interest, he had par-
ticularly argued this question on both these grounds.
The Right Honourable Baronet had indeed vindicated
himself, because be had acted in pursuance of a statute.
And the Prime Minister bad upbraided the House with its
inconsistencies, because it impugned the Government of the
country when they were defended and vindicated by nititnte
they themselves had passed. He thought, therefore, that it
was utterly out of the question for Osem to pass over the

legal question. He had always had the utmost respect for
Westminster Hall, and made one in the smallest minority in
that House that ever divided in support of the supremacy of
the Courts of Common-law. But he thought it was
a novel and somewhat dangerous opinion which
was broached by the Honourab'e Member for
Sheffield, that a point of constitutional law was not a point
of discussion in that House. How would the question of ge-
neral warrants ever have been decided, if a friend of the Go-
vernment had then risen in his place and said that this was not
a question with which the representatives of the people ought
to interfere? The only difference between this case and that of
general warrants s as, that the exercise of a remarkable power
by the Secretary of State rested on a positive statute, and the
only fault found with the Minister was, that he continued to
exercise that power when the statute was not only become
obsolete but had altogether ceased.—(Hear, and cheers. )
No person could contend that this power had been con-
ferred by the statute. The Right Hon. Gentleman said he
acted in pursuance of the statute, but he did not put his finger
on the statute ; and the Right Hon. Baronet the First Minister
of the Crown had told the House that Parliament had created
the power which the Government had exercised, but the Right
Hon. Gentleman did not put his finger on the statute. The
statute of Anne had been alluded to repeatedly, but no member
of the Government had said where it bore upon the present
case. The Secret Committee had evinced its anxiety to
go into antiquarian research and historical dissertation ;
had they consulted other information, which lay nearer their
nose, instead of musty records in the Rolls-office, they might
have settled the question for ever. The words in the statute
were only an echo of the sentence to be found in the prelimi-
nary proclamations of the Crown. They never found any allu-
sion, until the reign of Anne, that any practice of the kind at
present under discussion existed, or the means where-
by the right use of such a search was guaran-
teed. And for good reasons, no one versed in
the common law would pretend that it had any
foundation in common law—the interference of a Minister of
State, on such a subject, and under such circumstances, was
far too highly political, and could only be justified on great
political grounds, which would amply justify it.—(Hear, hear. )
But in the Parliament of Anne, when the first Act was
passed respecting the Post-office, how was the Parliament
constituted? Not of men as innoeent as the men constituting
this Assembly—they were not men like his Hon. Friend the
Member for hull, who, like himself ( Mr. D'lsraeli) and many
others, were ignorant of the practice pursued at the present
day, until accidentally revealed ; but the men who formed
the Parliament of that day were the descendants of Hampden
and of Elliott—they were the sons of men who, only fifty
years before exercised the sovereign power in England—men
versed in the traditions of the assembly in which they sat,
made acquainted with all the secret practices of the Govern-
ment, and therefore an Aet of Parliament was passed, pro-
viding that no letter passing through the Post-office should be
tampered with, except by the Secretary of State. It was to
prevent the interference of eonnexions with their correspondence,
and to make one man of station alone responsible for such acts.
But that did not make the Secretary of State sufficiently ans-
werable to the injured individual. The Secretary of State kept
back the letters on his own responsibility. The colleague of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury ( Mr. Wakley) asked what was
meant by the responsibility of Ministers? He said it WAS a
phantom and a shadow, which no one could understand. There
certainly was some force in the remark of the Hon. Member. He
thought the political responsibility of Ministets was a mere farce.
Ministerial responsibility to the majority of men—his own
creation—offered no guarantee to society ; but the responsi-
bility of Ministers, under these circumstances, to this House is
a precise, complete, and perfect responsibility which the laws
of England recognise. In the case of general warrants the
House of Commons supports the Minister in his issue of
them. What occurs ? Under the Act for the regulation of
the press in the reign of Charles IL, the Minister issued a
general warrant, though that Act was unheard of before the
time of Bolingbroke. In 1763, general warrants were issued.
The House of Commons vindicated the Minister. The case
was brought before the Courts of Westminster Hall (the case
of Leach was familiar to every lawyer), a verdict was given
for the plaintiff, and what did the House of Commons
do? Why, they supported Ministers. But they met next day
and unanimously voted that general warrants were illegal. This
case clearly showed the responsibility of Ministers, and the
case was analogous to the present. The action parallel in this
case to that. The House of Commons now qualified its former
opinion as regarded the legality as well as every other part of
the question. ,He stopped one moment to consider
what was the really interesting portion of the case
as it had been put by the Right Honourable
Secretary at War. Before he approached it he would clear
the ground of all other questions into which the House had
entered so largely He was not present, but he understood the
Government had amply vindicated itself with regard to the
Italian exiles. To him, he confessed, that was not surprising.
He knew enough of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs to know that, however active he might be in the duties
of office, he was a nobleman of the most generous impulse,
and he felt persuaded that if, under present circumstances, he
had erred at all, he would have erred on the side of indul-
gence and lenity. If the Noble Lord had exercised
his discretion, if he had communicated the, information which it
was alleged had brought about this catastrophe—even if what
occurred could be attributed to that information ; he would
not have presumed to scrutinise the conduct of Ministers in
such a position, and under such circumstances with severity.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, that great master of analytical narrative,
who placed before the House with painful perspicuity what
would have been the consequences if the letter to M.
Mazzini had not been intercepted. Every event that might
have occurred was mapped before them with a precision
which was almost prophetic. How the letter was sent
and received in the almost solitary island of the Mediterranean,
the expedition of twenty unarmed men, the invasion of Ca-
labria, the insurrection of the North of Italy, the Austrians
crossing the Appenines, the French crossing the Alps,—all
these were detailed with surprising minuteness and accuracy.
The danger of a general war was also insisted upon in forcible
language. These things, he repeated, were related with painful
accuracy. Therefore, he would disembarrass them from the
circumstances in which he believed the Government were really
not to blame ; and which, even if the statement of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury had been correct, they should not rashly
give a decision on the merits ; and having fully considered the
legal part of ,the question introduced by the Right Hon. Baro-
net the First Lord of the Treasury, he came now to the poli-
tical considerations which formed the second part of his
speech. The Right Hon. Gentleman would pardon him for
saying that on that occasion he displayed unusual warmth.
He knew that under these circumstances it did not follow that
the Right Hon. Gentleman really felt—(Great laughter.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman was a great man, and held a
great position, and should not lose his temper; but in a popu-
lar assembly it was sometimes necessary to have the appear-
ance of acting the choleric gentleman.—( Hear.) He knew
occasions when the Right Honourable Gentleman struck
the red box very emphatically, when his cause was not
the best.—(Renewed laughter.) He believed that some-
times the younger Members were frightened at the
heat of the Minister, but he (Mr. D'lsraeli) had as
often assured them that there was not the least need for alarm.
It was not so serious a case—the Prime Minister was not going
to eat them. (Continued laughter.) He would cool presently ;
they knew not what the Right Hon. Gentleman would do ;
but it generally came to a call upon them to rescind their
votes.—( Great laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman hav-
ing divided his defence of the Government under two heads—
having argued with great detail upon the report, and having
proved that they were wrong on this consideration, but not
trusting too much to the positien which he had chosen to
occupy, took refuge in the consideration of high political topics.
It was but lately they had been somewhat surprised by the
speech of an Honourable Member ( Mr. J. S. Wortley ).
He would not say that the present debate would be brought to
a close, but most certainly he doubted whether the amendment
of the Noble Lord would have been produced, but for that
stpheemechttfatthien
IR64ig2htthHe ocnou.
nGtreyntewlams
iann —graefatterdahnge hera,daansdsutrheadt
the responsibility devolved on Government of quelling that
danger. After his quotation of that evidence, which at the
time was not received with all the credit which it had lately
received. After the Right Hon Gentleman had, in fact,
more than intimated that it was possibible even for a Member
of Parliament to be concerned in a conspiracy and in rebellion,
it seemed to him impossible that the question could be left
otherwise than as it was.—( Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend
the Member for Hull ( Sir J. Hanmer) had spoken with candour,
yet with a becoming deference to the character of the gentle-
men composing the Secret Committee, of the report furnished
to the House on that subject. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) knew that
his Hon. Friend and many other gentlemen had, before
entering the House, entertained an intention, if not of
supporting, certainly with a very great bias in favour
of the Committee. But certainly after the distinct asser-
tion of the Honourable Member for Finsbury that this was
not a question of private feeling or of personal vengeance.
—and the assertion had a sort of authenticity attached to it—
he was justified in taunting a Minister of State, who opened
his letters, with practices which he rightly described as dis-
graceful to himself and his constituents.—( Cheers.) He was
animated with the same feelings as other gentlemen, and he
did own that, in this instance, he was not opposed to examina-
tion and inquiry. --( Hear, hear.) He himself could not be
supposed to have any hostile feeling to the Right Hon. Baro-
net, whose honour he had found unquestioned, and from whom
he had received nothing but courtesy—(lronical cheers, conti-
nued for some time, mingled with cries of " Oh, oh")—and
whatever the imputation—(Cheers of derision interrupted the
sentence). He spoke the feeling of all gentlemen who had
business transactions with him.—(Cries of " No, no," and
ironical cheers from all parts of the House.) He (Mr.
D'lsraeli) was sorry that these expressions—expressions per-
fectly sincere—should create emotions in the House of such a
eharacter.—( Oh, oh.) It was quite impossible that under
the circumstances, and with the novel features the accusation
had assumed, it could be passed over in silence. The cir-
cumstances of that accusation were different from those
under which the Honourable Member for Finsbury had first
addressed the House and called for an inquiry. At that time
the House entertained no idea, and he believed that such did
not exist in the Hon. Member's own breast, that his letters
had been opened. The Hon. Member for Bute (Mr. J.
Wortley) was mistaken in advancing the opinion he had that
night. He had no means of appealing to the heart—if such
existed—for some persons doubted whether Members of Par-
6tment had hearts—(Laughter)--but when he laid down the
principle that there was no difference betwen the representa-
tive and his constituency, such a position was neither con-
stitutional nor legal. It was opposed to all practice, and to
the spirit of the House, and most odious and obnoxious to the
feelings of the country.—( Great cheering.) He agreed with
the Hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) that this was
one of the most delicate powers which could be exercised by
the Government. A Member of Parliament might be conidered
as a sort of political father confessor ; and it was much better
that information upon any or every subject of complaint, should
be conveyed to the representative, than trust to the surveil-
lant* of the Secretary of State for the prevention of that ne-
cessity.—( Cheers.) They were going to give an independent
vote without heeding what side of the House they usually sup-
ported. That was no question of party. They could not un-
derstand the feelings of the Members of the Secret Committee
—they consisted of gentlemen whom all respected; but :the
instructions of the House did not animate them to do more
than the report exhibited. What had in this case
happened to one Minister might happen to another.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Here were they in what
' he might call the third year of a Walpolian Administration,
and was it to be said, that one of themselves—a Member of
that House—should be made an example of? It seemed as
if the Government had said, " This is a happy chance, let us
take advantage of it." The Hon. Gentleman had made a
distinct accusation. He had asserted, and they must suppose
the Hen. Member believed that his letters had been opened.
He (Mr. D'lsraeli) did not hesitate to say. that they (the Go-
vernment) might open all his letters, provided they
ph:
the Noble Lord, and which he intended to second, t
answered them.-(Laughter.) The amendment
with the first
Govern-
ment would allow, was not of the same character.ect. ,
motion of the Hon. Memberi on the same subj He
onstituents of an Hon.
not think that because one of the
edition, that therefore
Member should be suspected
esfensteative should be opened.
the correspondence with his re.py!ear,
hear.") He did not
—(Sir R. Peel, ironically— n
ed by the Right Hon. Baronet;
for
understand the sarcasm
it 'd that, notwithstanding a friend of the
for he had heard stai
Baronet's was engaged in Despard's plot, he
Right Hon.
communicated with him.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
undersd that friend held office in the Administration.—
( Great cheering.) He therefore thought that the Right
rinrc;rdteisjyy
-lion. Baronet might have reserved his sarcasm.—(Cheers.)
And he would add that, when taunted while speaking a short
time ago, he had no intention of making any unseen

attack upon the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State.
But he had made no attack upon the Government—he had
said nothing that was disrespectful of the Government—(Oh,
oh)—but he felt himself compelled to admit, for the fact was
arteniable, that the letters ot the Hon. Member for Finsbury
had been opened by her Majesty's Government. and the reason
for so d iing had not been inquired into.—( Hear, hear.) This
was not merely the battle of the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
but the battle of every Member of that House, and every sub-
ject of her Majesty was as deeply interested in it as Members
df this House were—( Hear, hear)—and the Government may
rely upon it, that whatever the decision of the House might be
to-night, the public would look with a jealous eye upon their
proceedings, and oppose every attempt to violate the public
rights.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord SANDON rose amidst loud cries of " Divide, divide."
He said he had merely risen for the purpose of reminding the
House that the Committee had not made their report upon the
question as it affected the Hon. Member for Finsbury. but is
oh-di•Ace to the order of the House, and to the decision of
that tribunal they left it without any reference to him
( Mr. Duncombe). The House should bear in mind
that when first the Honourable Member for Finsbury
introduced this subject to the House he made some allusion to
his own letters, and yet he declined to offer any evidence to
the Committee upon that part of the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The Committee, however, in their report, had endeavoured to
discover what number of warrants had been issued for the last
twenty-two years by the different Pi ime Ministers during that
period, and the result of their investigation was already before
the House in the paragraph they had already heard read, and
which was to this effect.—( Here the Noble Lord read the
paragraph, and concluded by expressing a hope that the House
would not consent to re-investigate this question by coming to
another vote upon it. )
Mr. ROEBUCK would be sorry that the House should
come to a vote upon this question until he had expressed his
sentiments upon it, and therefore he now stood up to do so. In
speaking upon this question he begged to be understood as se-
parating from it any consideration of a personal nature, and
approaching it only upon public grounds. When firsfithis question
was submitted to the House by the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
the Hon. Baronet ( Sir J. Graham) said, in answer to it, that he
stood upon the responsibility of his station, and would not
answer the question. The Right lion. Baronet, the First
Lord of the Treasury, was the next Member of her Majesty's
Government to give an opinion upon the question (and that
Hon. Baronet was an exceedingly correct barometer of the
temperature of public opinion)—( Laughter )—and the Hon.
Baronet said he was obliged to take up a position different from
that of his colleague, and that he would meet the public feeling,
and therefore appointed a Select Committee in order to allay
the public excitement. Why had that been done? Because
the suspicion of the public had been excited against the Go-
vernment, inasmuch as it was generally believed that the pre-
sent Government had exercised this power for the first time.
The Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) then said, " Give us a
Committse, and the whole truth shall be elicited."—( Hear.)
Well, the Committe had been appointed, and made their in-
quiry ' • and what was the result of their proceeding?—( Hear. )
He (Mr. R.) did not impugn the honour of that Committee ; but
this he would say, and he would pledge everything he held dear
to support it, that the report had not given satisfaction to the
public.—( Hear.) The Committee had two questions before it
—one was as to the state of the law, and the other as to the
power of the Government. One of these affected the foreign
policy of the country, and the other the private question in re-
spect to the Hon. Member for Finsbury himself.—( Hear.)
What did the Committee do? They gave no opinion respect-
ing the Hon. Member for Finsbury, but altogether passed
over his case.— (Hear, hear.) Did the Right. Lion. Baronet
think that the public were satisfied with the report on that part
of the case upon which they did express an opinion ?—( Hear,
hear.) If so, why did he make that extraordinary explanation
on Tuesday night, that the Chief Secretary fur Foreign Affairs
received a communication from the Austrian Ambassador, and
thereupon he applied to the Home Secretary to send an order
to the Post-office, and accordingly the warrant was issued
which led to certain information being communicated to the
Austrian Ambassador? But the Right Hon. Gentleman made
this extraordinary additional explanation, that the Foreign
Secretary, Lord Aberdeen, exercising that great discretion
entrusted to him, made the communication to Austria—a
private communication and, having destroyed it, he
was not now able to trust his memory so as to
inform the House, to which he was responsible, what the nature
of the communication was. —( Hear, hear.) That was an as-
tounding explanation.—( Hear, hear.) It was supplemental
to the report of the Committee which had been appointed to in-
vestigate this great question of foreign policy, affecting the
most important interests of this countrv.—( Hear.) The Noble
Lord (Lord Sandon) whose duty, as a Member of that Com-
mittee, it had been to carry out the inquiry, and to make the
report so as to appease the anxiety and to satisfy the just cu-
riosity of the nation, thought proper just now to characterize
toe desire of Members of that House to obtain a full inquiry for
the satisfaction of the House, and of their constituents, a
" prurieritcuriosity."—( Hear. ) He (Mr. R,) asked what right
had the Noble Lord to use that phrase ?—( Cheers, and cries ot
"Oh ! oh I) The phrase was unjustifiable—( Hear)—and he
(Mr. Roebuck)—for one was impelled with indignation to repel
the imputation of " prurient curiosity."—( Cheers. ) The Hon.
Member for Finsbury had made a direct and distinct appeal
to the Committee. Now, he (Mr. Roebuck) regretted the
tone and temper in which that Hon. Member made his state-
ment, and he thought that great injustice had been done to the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham), for he believed
that the exercise of this odious power was well intended to
maintain the peace of Europe.--( Hear, hear.) But that was
far from sufficient. They wanted to know how that discre-
tionary power had been employed, that the House might know
whether it was necessary to legislate upon the subject.—( Hear,
hear.) He regretted the languag,e used by the Hon. Member
for Finsbury and Liskeard, for he thought it better not to
bring personal hostility into the discussion of so grave a ques-
tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham) was
not to blame for the exercise of this power, but the Ministry—
and if the power was improper, the Ministry was not to blame
for its existence.—( Ministerial cheers.) He (Mr. Roebuck )
might say, that he had in 1837 and 1838, the same cause of
complaint as the Hon. Member for Finsbury had now made.—
(.' Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The Hon. Member
for Finsbury said his letters were opened. The
Noble Lord said lie had read all the warrants, but
he did not say whether they applied to the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. That Gentleman did not know whe-
ther his letters Here opened under the authority of a warrant,
or without it. He would assume that there was a warrant, and
that the Right Hon. Secretary issued it upon his own respon-
sibility. \t hat was that responsibility? Was it to this.
House ?—( Hear, hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman said
that it was on his own responsibility. 'What ? Was the re-
sponsibility to himself ? which was no responsibility.—
( Cheers.)—The Right Hon. Baronet was responsible to some-
body, and that responsibility was due to that House. 'fhe
Right Hon. Baronet said he was excluded from giving the
House the information which was demanded of him. Now,
from that oath he had been relieved by her Majesty, to enable
him to give evidence on the Secret Committee. But still he
refused to give the information, and the Right Hon. Baronet
at the Head of the Government excused his Hon. Colleague,
on the plea that it would be disclosing the secrets of his
office. This was employing the name and attributes of
the Sovereign in a way altogether improper, but there was no
no doubt whatever but that the Right Hon. Baronet was per-
sonally responsible. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head of
the Treasury was exercising the highest functions of his office
when he was refusing the information the House required.
Suppose, however, they had exercised a power to which they
hart no right. One of the greatest causes of alarm out of doors
was what had been stated in another place by the very highest
legal authority. That this power was not conferred in the
way in which it was supposed to be by Right Hon. Gentlemen
opposite. " The power," said the Right Hon. Baronet, " has
been conferred upon me of opening any letters which I may
think fit, upon my own responsibility, and that power is re-
cognised by the Act of Anne, and again by the Act of Victoria."
Well, the Right Hon. Baronet said he had full power to open
whatever letters he thought fit, upon his own responsibility.
Now he denied this in Coto. The statement bore il-
legality upon the face of it ; and when his Honourable
and Learned Friend opposite, the Solicitor-General, was
called upon for his opinion upon it, he had no doubt he
would agree with him in what he now stated. But there had
not only boon exercised an illegal power, but the use of a power
which was not granted by law. In the 40th section of the Act
of Anne, there were these words:—" That no letters should
be opened after the same shall have been delivered into the
General Post-office, before the delivery thereof, without the
express warrant in writing of one of her Majesty's Principal
Secretaries of State shall have been obtained." Now the mean-
ing of thts was, that the warrant of the Secretary of State
should be a sufficient authority to enable one ot the servants of
the Post-office to open letters without incurring blame or pu-
nishment. The authority was only implied to open letters, and
if the Right Hon. Gentleman would just give his warrant to any
one man at the Post-office, to open any one letter of
the Honourable Member for Finsbury, and would afterwards
lay the warrant upon the table in that House, they would take
the case to the Court of Queen's Bench, and try the legality
of the warrant. If the Right Hon. Baronet would only do
that, he had no doubt that the Hon. Member would bring an
action in twenty-four hours after the warrant was en the table.
The Government were bound not only by law, but by prudence,
to answer the question that had been put to them. Now, he
wanted the House for a moment to consider the consequences
of the declaration made the other evening by the Right Hon.
Baronet at the head of the Government. lie entered into a
most elaborate description of the circumstances in which the
country was placed in 1842. Now, he did not know
' what was the real intention of the Right Honourable
Baronet, but the feeling existed in his mind that he
wanted to show that England was in a dangerous
state at the time. That there had been exercised every power
which the Constitution gave them to protect and secure the
peace of the country. The House would remember that the
Right Finn. Baronet had before told them that amongst their
powers, was that of opening letters; and, further, the asser-
tion prevously made by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, that
his letters had been opened. The natural inference was, that
the Government had thought it a precautionary step to procure
order and peace to open the letters of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.—( Hear, hear.) Now, if that were so, he asked,
would it not be prudent if the Right Hon. Baronet would
follow the dictates of honour and respect the feelings of the
people, by coming forward, and admitting the act, declare that
they had found nothing to criminate the Hon. Member for
Finsbury? If they had done this, they might easily have
said that they had pursued the same steps as their own im-
mediate predecessors ; and this they had done upon the deep
feeling of responsibility which attached to their office.—
(Hear, hear.) Suppose that had been the answer of the Right
Hon. Baronet, why, they would have had the public with
them. They would have made this a useful instead of a dan-
gerous power, and the people would have been satisfied. The_e
Right Hon. Gentleman had already made two concessions. H
believed that he would have to make a third, and that they
would at last, hear from him the statement which it. would
have been wise to have made in the first instance —(Cheers.)
He would be obliged to say, " We thought . thwisasneescseesnstairayl
atto
the time ; we did it under the notion that jtthat the power
the peace of the community, if you thneik,
on the other hand
has not been rightly exercised,
;taken away, state your
with
—if you think that it ought tsoaybseo_
opinion." " That would have.
op . been.a.af
eankhewahyadandoeadltungbt
this question. To refer to his ow ,
if he had inquired of the Noble Lord the Member fort he City
to 111 r.
of London whether or not he had opened his letters-
would have replied distinctly to the question ;
Papineau,
and had there been in them anything wrong he would not be
where he
was at that moment. As far as he himself was
coneerner
I, tie cared very litfle whether his letters had been
not. But that was not the feeling of the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Finsbury. It was not the feeling of
the people of this great country.—(Hear, hear.) They said,
and said truly, that, although the exercise of the diseretion of
the Foreign Secretary might not necessarily lead to any evil,
yet there might come a time when there should be a Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs who might not be discreet, and
who might give information to foreign nations which would issue
in the most disastrous consequences.—( Hear.) If he (Mr. R. )
knew anything of the feelings of his countrymen, there was
nothing which would strike them with a feeling of greater
humiliation and shame than that the powers of their Govern-
ment should he employed for the base purposes of despotism in
any part of the world.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Baronet might rest assured, that if he wished the power vested
in him to he continued at all, he must make his declaration
quickly; but if he knew anything of the feelings of his coun-
trymen. the tower would not last much longer, but would be
done away with even after the declaration of the Right Hon.
Gentleman that he hail done what had been laid at his door.
Mr. COLLETT moved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. C. BULLER explained.