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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 21 1845.

issuing from a factory chimney more than so many
minutes in a certain number of hours. Now, in the pre-
mises with which he was connected there were three
distinct mills and three distinct sets of boilers or fur-
naces, and the smoke from the whole of these escaped
by one chimney. It would be impossible for
the police to tell whose fault it was that opaque
smoke was seen issuing forth in the case
to which he referred. The House had often proved it-
self quite unable to manage such affairs, awl he be-
lieved that all attempts to remedy the evil by means of
legislation would _be fruitless. He assured the Hon.
Member that there was not a single clause of his Bill
of. last session which he could not have set
at nought with the most perfect impunity.
The Hon. Gentleman was, he believed, in the habit of
visiting a near relative of his, who resided in a manu-
facturing district, and he might have thought that the
smoke from these chimneys was a nuisance. But his
near relative with his horses and his hounds, and
all the absurdities which arose from that system—
(Laughter) well, that was apart from the
subject altogether, and he would not pursue
it.—(Hear, hear.) He had no desire to interfere with
the Hon. Gentleman, but he thought it would save a
great deal of time to the House if leave were not given
to bring in the Bill. He would advise the Hon. Gen-
tleman to consult practical men before he took the sub-

ject in hand.
Mr. FERRAND said that two days ago he was speak-
ing to a very large manufacturer in Yorkshire, and who ,
was also a member of the Anti-Corn-law League, and
he told him (Mr. Ferrand) that he burned his own
smoke ; that it was easy to be accomplished, and asked
him to use his exertions in Parliament to compel every
manufacturer to do the same.
Sir. J. GUEST thought it was impossible to get rid
of smoke altogether.
Mr. RICARDO said he would give every opposition
to the Bill.
Mr. MILNES said that he attended a meeting at
Leeds, which was attended by every respectable inha-
bitant, and there was net a single objection made to
the propriety of making some such attempts as that
made by the Honourable Member near him. Any
person who inspected the magnificent works of his
esteemed friend, Mr. Marshall, of Leeds, might see
how efficiently this nuisance might be abated. The
House would do well to apply itself to get rid of what
must be allowed to be a great nuisance, not merely with
regard to taste or appearance, but with regard -to its
injurious effects on the health of the inhabitants of the
manufacturing districts.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. BORTHWICK said that the Hon. Gentleman
opposite said that scientific and practical men should
be examined before any Bill was brought in on the sub-
ject. Now, the fact was, that scientific and practical
men had been examined before the Committee, and their
opinion was that the nuisance of smoke could be abated,
and that it might be effected without any considerable
loss- to the manufacturers.—(Hear, hear) That
being the case, and no witness having come before
the Committee to show that it was impossible to annihi
late the nuisance, he thought the House ought not to
throw any impedient in the way of his Hon. Friend's
Bill, but should allow it to be committed.
Mr. HAWES said as this was the second time the
Bill was brought before the House, he wished to ask the
Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests,
whether the Government had formed any opinion upon
the subject ? The question was one of importance, and
one in which the manufacturers and manufacturing dis-
tricts were deeply interest( d.—(Hear, hear.) Before leg;s-
lating on the subject, they ought to inquire whether it
were practicable at all to annihilate the nuisance; and if so,
whether the Bill proposed by the Hon. Gentleman was
r with his Hon. Faricteicnadb,lethine
iNtlsepmrbeesernftorstDatue,rhaanmd:
calculated to effect that object.—(Hear, hear.) He
Bill was
athgarteetdhe
if entertained at all, should be referred to a Select Com-
mittee.

Lord LINCOLN said that the attention of the Go-
vernment had been turned to the subject. He had him-
self consulted upon it several practical gentlemen. and he
agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that
they had now to consider two points—Was it practicable
to abate the nuisance? and was the Bill before the House
adapted to the purpose.? As to the first question, he
thought it was possible to abate the nuisance.—(llear.)
But he was at the same time disposed to think with the
Hon. Member for Durham, that the Bill would not be
effective.—(Hear.) The subject was one of great com-
mercial importance. He was inclined to think, under
the circumstances he had stated, it was impossible they
could allow this Bill to proceed.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS thought the Hon. Gentleman
had anticipated the acquiescence of the manufacturing
interest in introducing this Bill. In the borough he had
the honour to represent, the corporation possessed power
to make experiments to suppress the smoke nuisance.
Trio power was given to them by a Bill introduced into
that House last session by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Durham ; but he was not aware whether the regula-
tions of the corporation had yet come into farce. He did
not intend to oppose the measure of the Hon. Gentleman
opposite ; but he would suggest whether it would not be
better to postpone the Bill until the results of these ex-
periments were made known.
Mr. BECKETT thought the Hon. Menber was per-
fectly justified in proceeding with his measure. During
the recess the gentlemen of Leeds had several meetings
on this subject, and he took the opportunity of attending
them. Most of those gentlemen appeared favourable to
legislative enactments for the suppression of the smoke
nuisance, and he repeated the Hon. Gentleman was
perfectly justified in proceeding with his measure.—
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Experiments had been
made by several manufacturers, and he could
state that the results had been most satisfactory.
In conclusion, he would only observe that what had
taken place in Leeds afforded great encouragement to
the people of the town, and the results were expected to
be such as would lead to very satisfactory regulations.
Mr. MUNTZ said it would but very ill become him
to offer any objection to this Bill, considering that
he had lived in the midst of smoke all his life.—
(Laughter.) But this he would tell the House, that in
some trades smoke might be got rid of, while in others
it would be perfectly impossible. For instance, it would
be ruinous to the iron trade to do so, and therefore the
House ought to be very careful as to what Bill
they should introduce before they legislated upon this
subject. In the Bill formerly proposed, it was intended
to appoint inspectors to inquire into the extent of the rui-
sance ; but he would say that if the nuisanco was so small
as to require inspectors, it could not be called a nuisance
at all.—(Hear, and a laugh.) But let the House under-
stand this, 'that it was useless to expect to get rid of
smoke without an increase of the expense of fuel. He
had tried many experiments, and ha'l always found this
to be the result. The great difficulty that all masters
found was to make their men attentive.
Mr. GILL said that both experience and reason
taught him that there must be a considerable saving in
fuel by the consumption of smoke.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND said there was an appa-
ratus at present in operation at all the dockyards of the
country by which smoke was consumed.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
PENAL ENACTMENTS AFFECTING ROMAN
CATHOLICS.

Mr. WATSON rose to bring in a Bill for a further
revel of the enactments imposing pains and penalties
upon her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account
of their religion. He expressed a hope that, if the Go-
vernment should permit this Bill to be introduced,
the discussion upon it would be taken on the second
reading. The Bill was similar in its operation to the
one which was introduced into the House of Lords last
session, on the same subject, by Lord Beaumont.
The measure had received the sanction of the Lord
Chancellor, and the principal law authorities of the House
of Lords. He did not imagine that there could be any
objection to the principle of the Bill, and the details of
it could be more advantageously discussed in Com-
mittee than on the present occasion. He was per-
fectly prepared to go into the subject, if th" House
wished him to do so.—(Cries of " Move, move.") But
he thought he should be better consulting the conve-
nience of the House by contenting himself with simply
moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS wished to hear some state-
ments with regard to the objects of the Bill, and
in the absence of such statements, it was impossible
for him to vote for the affirmative of the question.
He begged to state deliberately, that at present he could
form no opinion whatever upon the subject of the Bill,
for he did not know to what penalties the Roman Ca-
tholics were exposed, or from what it was proposed to
relieve them. He should like to hear the statement of
the Hon. Member before he decided upon the subject,
and for that reason he would suggest the propriety of
the debate being adjourned.
Sir J. GRAHAM (who addressed the House amidst
great confusion, which rendered him at times inaudible)
expressed a wish that be had had an opportunity of
speaking to the Hon. Gentleman on the subject before
he had addressed the House. The measure was only a
part of a larger measure which had received the
sanction of the other House of Parliament.—(Hear,
hear, and cheers.) The subject, however, was one
which bad been under the consideration of the
Commissioners for the Consolidation of the Criminal
Law. To that commission there had recently
been added Sir Edward Bryce, Mr. Richards,
and Mr. Amos, who had just returned from India.
The first great question which would come under the
consideration of this Commission was the penal statutes.
The Commission intended to consolidate the statutes
into one great code, arranging them under two separate
and distinct heads. After this explanation it was for
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to say whether or not
he would persist in his motion. If the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman persisted in his motion, he would not offer
any objection to it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to express
his approbation of the course which the Commission
intended to pursue, and he was glad to hear that the
criminal code and the statute law were about to be con-
solidated. At the same time, he saw no objection to
the introiuction of the Bill by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman.
Lord J. MANNERS said, as the Hon. Member for
Kinsale did not propose to proceed any farther than
the first stage of the Bill before Easter, he trusted the
Right Hen. Baronet, the Member for the University of
Oxford, would withdraw his opposition to the measure.
Sir R. INGLIS said he did not oppose the Bill ; he
only wished for a postponement to give time for conside-
ration. He would, however, withdraw his opposition.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
THE BANDIERAS.
Sir R. PEEL said a question was put to him a short
time ago, which he had answered, stating that if he
were in error he would correct it to-morrow. But he
was now desirous to correct an error he had fallen in:o,
before the debate on the Post-office began. He had stated
that the Consuls who applied to Lord:Seaton with respect
to the embarkation of the Bandieras at Corfu were the
Austrian and the Pontifical Consuls, but he was in error
in this, as the Neapolitan Consul also made an applica-
tion, and this was the communication received from Lord

Seaton on the subject. The brothers Bandiera conducted
thmselves with propriety during their residence in
Corfu, but on the night of the 12th of June they, in com-
pany with other individuals, to the number of twenty-one
persons, embarked in a small vessel and sailed, as it is
supposed, for the coast of Calabria. The Austrian
and Neapolitan Consuls waited on him to be fur-
nished with the means of bringing back the
vessel. This there was no authority to do, but he placed
at their disposal the means of communicating the de-
parture of the vessel to the Neapolitan authorities.
CLERKS OF QUARTER SESSIONS.
Sir J. GRAHAM brie fly moved for leave to bring in
a Bill to regulate the appointment and payment of Clerks
and other Officers of the Courts of Petty and Quarter
Sessions of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, snd Gaol

Delivery.
Mr. FERRAND wished to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, whether it was his intention to deprive magistrates
of the power of appointing their own clerks ? If that
were the case, he believed it would cause a great many
magistrates to retire altogether from the commission of

Lovett.

the peace.
Mr. ESCOTT said he apprehended that was not the
proper time to discuis the clauses of this Bill. He must,
however, sincerely thank the Right Hon. Baronet for
introducing so important a measure. The objeet which
he should keep in view in the further progress of the
measure would be to take care that no provision was in-
troduced into the Bill to enable any person who derived
profit from former extortionate practices, to be remu-
nerated in proportion to his past extortion.—(Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM begged to state, in reply to the Hon.
Member for ICnaresborough, that he did not seek by his
Bill to deprive magistrates of the power of appointing their
own clerks, but he objected to allowing them to receive
any fees except in Petty Sessions or in open Court.
WAKLEY moved for a copy of any petition, to-
gether with a copy of the signatures attached thereto,
which had been presented to the Crown by the Council of
the Royal College of Surgeons of England, praying her
most gracious Majesty to grant to that College the
Charter which received the sign manual of the Crown on
the 14th day of September, 1843.
Mr. HUME moved for a Select Committee to inquire
into the state and management of the lighthouses, float-
ing lights, buoys, and beacons, under the charge
and management of the Corporation, of Trinity House
of Deptford Stroud, of the Commissioners of
Northern Lighthouses, of the Corporation for preserv-
ing and improving the Port of Dublin, and of all
lights, buoys, and beacons, in the hands of any
other corporation, public body, or private. individuals
whomsoever ; also, into the amount of the gross and the
netap p revenue,ropriti
on the
thereof ;
expensesalson,f into the
managing
the same, and the
authorities under
which the respective dues are collected and applied ;
also, to inquire into the circumstances attending the pur-
chase of private lighthouses, and the state of the
amounts of these purchases; also, to aseertain all the
changes or improvements that have been made
in lighthouses, Bsc.. and the extent of relief which has
been afforded by reduction or alteration of dues in the
United Kingdom since 1834 ; and how far the recom-
mendation of the Select Committee on lighthouses in
1834 have been carried out; also, to consider whether
any and what alterations can be made in the amount
of the light and other dues, and into the management
of the same, for the relief of the shipping of the country.
Mr. LIDDELL said it was not his intention to raise
any discussion on the motion of the Hon. Gentlemen the
Member for Montrose, but he begged to remind him that
the Committee which sat on the subject, of which
the Hon. Member for London was the Chairman, had
not allowed this matter to escape them.. He did not see
that the Hon. Gentleman could obtain any further in-
formation than was 'to be found in the report of that
Committee.
Mr. HUME said, that he had read the report to
which the Honourable Gentleman alluded, and also
the report of the Committee on Shipwrecks, both
of which alluded incidentally to the subject. But
the object which he (Mr. Hume) had in view was. a
financial one, and neither of those Committees di-
rected its attention to this view of the subject.
The Motion was then agreed to.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.
On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE the order of
the day for the adjourned debate on the Post-office in-
quiry was read.
Mr. M. MILNES said tl.at he did not know that he
should have intruded on the House in this debate, but
for the accident that he had lately travelled through the
countries in which the unfortunate events referred to
in the debate had occurred, and he had observed the un-
happy effect produced on the minds of the people in
foreign countries by these unfortunate occurrences.--
(Hear, bear.) He had observed that there prevailed
the utmost suspicion and the most painful surmises at-
tached to the conduct of this country—(Hear, hear).—
Surmises not the less painful because he knew them to
be unfounded—Suspicions not the less obnoxious be-
cause he knew they were absurd.—(Hear, hear.)
(There was considerable talking in the House, and the
Hon. Gentleman paused for a moment. The Speaker
repeatedly called out " Order, order, at the bar.") It
had long been the privilege anu the honour of this coun-
try that it had afforded refuge and asylum to those who
were obliged to leave their, own country, for political
differences or political oppression.—(llear, hear.) He
thought that there was no
,inore gratifying retrospect in
the history of this country than this,—that from the time
when Elizabeth gave refuge to these who fled from the
tyranny of Philip the Second, and from the persecution
of France, England received with open arms
the oppressed and perse,uted from all nations—
ti and
t ehLreigbseeatrwtai lnpsg,ainufpuClaienrol inhs
contests
place,
heard the French
Italians, and in the present day without distinc-
nebrdetwinegePntohtlheaists
country and France, and when h.,
aga nnaplaceand
as and
as far as he knew, that the communication by post was
absolutely secure, and when he saw that the English
Government could not make the same assertion, he was
led to the conviction that England had obtained through
the continent an injurious reputation, When he heard
in the streets of Germany songs sung on this subject, it
was no consolation to him to see his Right Hon. Friend
the head of the Home. Department the hero of the
fable—(Great laughter)—although he believed that
no Government was less inclined to interfere with
the liberty of the subject than that of the Right Hon.
Baronet. Yet he thought what had taken place was
not calculated to allay the' suspicion that had been ex-
cited towards him. The wife of Ciesar must be above
suspicion—(Laughter)—and so must her Majesty's Mi-
nisters—(Continued laughter)—but if shehad not been
able to answer the plainest question in the simplest Eng.
lish—(Great laughter)--he feared that that Right Hon.
Lady could not haVe remained above suspicion. No
doubt n'great degree of the unpopularity attached to her
Majesty's Government was owing to the want of their
not having met it in the first instance with simplicity
and candour. He did believe if the question had been
met without difficulty or mystery, when the question was
first brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, it would have saved a great deal
of the pain which had been inflicted on the country.
If his Right Hon. Friend, instead of investing the subject
with all kinds of difficulty, had simply asserted what the
real circumstances were, and declared the matter of
opening the letters of M. Mazzini and others had no con-
nexion with his immediate Parliamentary duties, but
was an act of a convulse)), nature. He was asked and
compelled to sign these warrants. For his part, how-
ever he did not see why the Right Hon. Baronet was
called on to sign the warrants at all. The Act of Par-
liament requires only one of her Majesty's principal Se-
cretaries of State to sign the warrant, and he thought it
would have been much better had Lord Aberdeen
taken the matter upon himself. If this course
had , been pursued, Lord Aberdeen would have been
able to give an answer when the question was
first mooted, and whether satisfactory or not,'
it would have appeared, in a great degree, the
public indigation against the Government in this parti-
cular. Suspicion had been allowed to grow up—misre-
presentations had been allowed to grow up, with the
determination,' on the other side, not to set anybody
right. The consequence had been, that at this moment
there was a most general and painful feeling pervading
the country with regard to the question before the
House. He would, with the permission of the House,
say a few words upon the two divisions in which the
question had been brought before the House. The first
division was connected with foreign affairs, and the
second was connected ssith the opening of the letters of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury. With regard to the
first, he had thought it to be his duty to propose to her
Majesty's Go'vernment, on the previous night, a question
connected with' it, and to a certain degree he thought the
answer was satisfactory. It was satisfactory, not only
to himself, but to all whom he had consulted on the sub-
ject. The answer was, that the opening of Mr. Mazzini's
letters was not connected with the unfortunate expedi-
tion of the Bandiera family. So far, therefore, as Lord
Aberdeen wasconcerned, he thought the explanation was
satisfactory, inasmuch as the opening of the letters was
shown to have no connexion with that unhappy band of
men. At the same time he should say that the whole of this
proceeding involved a very grave and serious question,
and one that affected the general and foreign policy of
the. Government. In fact, if this proceeding was to be
recognised, the Austrian Government had nothing to do
but gee the sanction of the English GovernMent to
invade Italy. But in the case now under consideration
that act had been committed by no diplomatic right:
It might be that this was part of a great scheme of
foreign policy ; but when the facts went forward to the
world, to the English peoPle, that this act had had the
sanction of the British Government, it must be a source
of pain not only to the Government, but to every
Member of the House. He should also beg to say he
conceived it would have been the duty of Lord Aberdeen
to have given public notice in the newspapers and by
other means of the fact that the English Govern-
ment were aware of the existence of this conspiracy,
and determined to defeat it; and if that had been done,
he (Mr. Milnes) felt assured that this unhappy expedi-
tion would never have taken place.—(Hear, hear.) An-
other fact connected with this subject had come before
the House, and it was one which the House would not
find as easy to dispose of as the others—he meant the
charge that had been made against the Government by
the H in. Member for Finsbury, of opening his own
letters.—(Hear, hear.) They all had had experience of
how very indefinite were the privileges of foreigners;
but that had no reference to the opening of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury's letters, and therefore he (Mr.
Milnes) hoped that Hon. Members on his side the
House would' not refuse the Hon. Member for Finsbury
what he asked —(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Milnes) did
think that lion. Member had a right to get a definite
answer from the Government as to whether a warrant
had been issued for opening his letters.—(CheerS from
the Opposition benches.) The on. Gentleman knew
that his name had been mi li
xed up with persons who' had
been suspected, and who had come under the sentence of
the law.—
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE.—Name them.
Mr. MILNES—One gentleman is an individual for

whom I have myself a very great respect, Mr. William

DUNCOMBE—Go on.
Mr. MILNES said ose name was as good as a hun-
dred. The Hon. Gentleman knew very well that the
line which he had taken in politics had nearly made him
an object—he would not say of suspicion—but of great
regard.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Milnes) did not believe
that the warrant of which the Hon. Gentleman com-
plained had been issued unwisely. At the same time, he
thought the Hon. Gentleman had a right to a full ex-
planation with respect to it. Now, one word as to the
motion of she Hon. Gentleman. It was stated on the
paper of the House that he demanded a new committee.
It would be in the is collection of the House that the
public were taken very much by surprise when they dis
covered that the power of opening letters was vested
in the Government. Sir John Hanmer—than whom no
man, for his age, was better read in the Constitution of
his country—was taken by surprise.--(Laughter.)
The fact of this ignorance being in existence proved,
he thought, the innocence of the party exercising it.
He did think that if the Hon. Member had brought his
own case under the notice of the House before that of
Mazzini, it 'would have been brought with much greater
weight. If his letters had been opened, it was his duty,
as a Member of Parliament, to come forward and make
the same charge then as now, and, most assuredly, had
be done so on the spot, the sympthy of Hon. Members
would have been much more warmly enlisted in his
favour.—(Hear, hear.) He had, in a great degree,
weakened his case by his delay.—(Hear.) However,
he still thought the Hon. Gentleman was justified in
asking the Right lion. Baronet if a warrant had been
granted to open his letters, and that his Right Honour-
able Friend might answer that question. A very great
question exists as to whether the present power
should be continued at all.—(Hear, hear.) His own
feeling was in favour of a limitation of that power. His
principal reason for not voting with the Hon. Member for
Finsbury was, because he believed that any Member who
voted for the motion gives colour of the most unjusti-
fiable suspicion and foul misrepresentation with respect to
the conduct of his Right Hon. Friend.(Hear, hear.)
The arrows of calumny had been directed from all quar-
ters against his Right lion. Friend ; he had been ex-
posed to the severest, and, in some cases, to the most
malignant censure. He was assailed by all the news-
papers, from the dullest down to the lively sallies of
Punch—and he should have said, up to Punch, for cer-
tainly they are the best of all.—(Hear, hear, laughter,
and cheers.) When he saw these things, he felt an
honest indignation at the gross injustice perpetrated
upon his Right Hon. Friend. The Hon. Gentleman con-
cluded by again saying that he. would oppose the motion.
Mr. MACAULAY then rose and said—Sir, I wish
to explain the precise nature of the vote which I am
about to give. I cannot vote for the motion of my
Hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury-, and my reasons
for not doing so are twofold. First, I think the
motion in itself is objectionable, inasmuch as it implies
a censure upon a Secret Committee of the House of
commons.—(Hear, hear.) My second reason is, that
even if the words of his motion did not imply censure.
the lion. Gentleman, when giving his notice, coupled it
with words which, even if it had been less strongly
worded, must have conveyed to the minds of all a cha-
racter of censure.—(Hear, hear.) The original notice
stood thus—it called the attention of the House, to
tbe evasive and unsatisfactory nature of the Secret Com-
mittee, and then went on to move, &c. In our pro-
ceedings, as every body knows, a motion is often con•
Bider d as explained by the speech of the Gentleman
who makes it ; and in this manner a speech is often
thought to criminate a motion ; but how much more
strong must this impression become when the speech is
not only strong, but the motion itself as it stands upon
the paper, is a species of censure?—(Hear.) On that
ground, if that were all. I could not vote for the motion
of the Hon. Member. I believe the Committee did their
duty honestly.—(Hear, hear.) From my own know-
ledge of the Members who composed that Committee,
I believe they conducted themselves in a manner which
left no room for censure. And moreover we ought
to be particularly cautious of passing censure on secret
committees, because the members of them are, from
their very nature, and from a sense of public duty, pre-
cluded from making statements, or entering into those
circumstances which make their justification and their
defence.—(Hear, hear.) These reasons appear to my
mind decisive against voting for the motion. A pro-
posal has likewise been made that a Committee should
be appointed to inquire whether or not it be expedient to
continue the present practice. Why. Sir, in my mind
there is no need whatever for the appointment of such
Committee—the subject is ripe for legislation—(Hear,
hear)—and to a great extent I agree with the Hon.
Member for Finsbury that legislation on the subject is
necessary and desirable.—(Hear, hear.) For myself, I
have at present very little doubt discussion may modify
my opinion as to the principles on which this law should
be guided. I cannot conceive how it could be made out
that there ought to be any difference in the principles
between the way of treating a letter in its transit through
the post and after it has been received by the person to
whom it is addressed. The letter addressed to me is as
much my property—to the very same extent and under
the same limitations—when in the mail-bag, as after it
has been delivered to me.—(Hear.) After a careful
consideration, I can see no reason for making a dis-
tinction. Both cases are, in point of right and pro
perty, 'precisely alike. The very same inconveniences
attaches to the perusal of my letter before as after its
delivery—the exposure of my secrets takes place in the
one case as well as in the other. As to public advan-
tage, there is the same chance that the public would
derive benefit and useful information from the letter
which has been delivered to-day, as from that which is
to be delivered tomorrow. The right of the subject to
his letter is subordinate to the claims of society in the
one case as well as in the other. The convenience of
opening a man's letter, sealing it up again, and forward-
ing it, so that he may never know what was done, I can
perfectly understand. In the same sense it may be use-
ful to hire a servant who can pick locks, and open and
copy other persons' letters.---(Hear, hear, from the Op-
position.) It may be useful and convenient, but is it, on
the whole, justifiable and beneficial ? Can any one
point out to me a case in which a letter, which has been
fairly delivered to the rightful owner, may not be con-
verted to the same use and convenience? I would leave
a power with the Secretary of State of sending warrants
to open any letter, but I would require that after a
certain time, that etter, which continued all along to be
the property of the. person to whom it was ad-
dressed (unless it was to be used in audi-
cial proceeding), should be forwarded to him,
with a stamp on the back of it, conveying to him
that it had been opened by the proper authorities --
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.) I may hear observations
that might change my opinions, but I think this prin-
ciple is a sound one. lam aware that there may be in-
conveniences from the adoption of this principle ; here
and there it might be desirable and more successful to
procure other means, but we are not as Members of
this House and as natives of this country at this time of
day
_to begin arguing the question whether all the advan-
tages to be obtained by adopting the principles and pur-
suing the designs of an arbitrary and despotic govern-
ment, are or are not proper.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," and cheers.) Should we restore that sort of es-
pionage and cruelty which existed before the Revolution,
although it was there found not only advantageous, but
as the politicians of the day contended, absolutely neces-
sary ? When I said the other night that putting to
the torture had been iii some instances found advan-
tageous, there were cries of no, hut history does not say so;
but, Sir, the question is are we Englishmen, from the ex-
perience which we have, to forfeit the benefits which
we derive from the security and confidence of private
life—to trust that no unfair advantage will be taken
of us—for a system which though it may sometimes
be attended with utility, destroys that confidence, trust,
and security.—(Hear, hear.) I think a Bill should' be
brought in, founded on principles such as those stated
to the House—to such a Bill I would be disposed to give
my sanction. Another part of the question is that which
relates to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury. I must declare my opinion that the Hon. Gentle-
man is entitled to have that matter cleared up.—(Hear,
hear.) A Member of Parliament' stands up in this
House, and tells you that his letters have been opened
in their transit through the post, and that he can prove
it. The Right Hon. Gentleman does not deny this.—
(Hear, hear.) He may say that a disclosure might prove
injurious ; but, Sir, after what the Right Hon. Gentle
man has said upon other cases, I do not see what harm
it would do to speak out upon this.—(Hear, hear.) I
defy any human being to tell me how it could' be attended
with any danger to the State, for the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to say that he bad never issued a warrant for the
opening of the letter's of the Hon. Gentleman.—(Hear,
hear.) There is another circumstance to which I did not
attach much importance at the time, but which now
strikes me forcibly, which creates a strang suspicion that
the Government have not dealt fairly by the House,
and which requires explanation. When we agreed
to grant a Committee in this House last
year, it seemed but fair that the Hon. Member
who brought forward the charge should be a Member
of that Committee; for, as far as my recollection serves,
I have scarcely ever known a Committee to be ap-
pointed by the [rouse of Commons, 'in which the Hon.
Member who brought the matter forward, who moved
for and obtained the Committee, was not himself a
Member of it.—(Hear, hear.) But it was sought to
constitute this Committee on a new and peculiar prin-
ciple, and it was said that, in fairness and in justice, the
Hon. Member, who was the accuser, ought to be ex-
cluded ; every Member of the present and of the late
Government was likewise excluded, for it was alleged
that the question would not undergo a fair and satisfac •
tory investigation, if the Hon. Member for Finsbury, or
a Member of either the late or present Administration,
were Members of it. The House was carried away by
this great show of, justice and candour, and I myself
voted with the Right Hon. Gentleman upon the prin-
, •
ctples that the construction and constitution of the Com-
mittee was to be so peculiarly fair. But in a day or two
the Government had to constitute a Committee in the
House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) How did they manage.
Did they act on the principle they were so anxious to
carry out in the House of Commons? Not at all. That
Committee was composed of party-men--of Members of
the late and of present Administration, and of ex-Chan-
cellors.--(flear, hear.) The reason for not constructing
the Committee there in the same way as here is as clear
as possible. If justice could not be done here with
Members of the two Governments, how was it to be done
there?—(Hear, hear.) But as soon as the matter came
:nto the House of Lords, all that careful exclusion of ex-
cluding particular parties was entirely forgotten. Now, Sir,
it does appear to me that, unless I-hear some explana-
tion of the construction of the Committee of the House
of Lords, the suspicion of unfairness will not be re-
moved from my mind. Under these circumstances, there
certainly dues appear to be some grounds for believing
that Mr. Duncombe's letters have been opened.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member may be innocent—(A laugh)
—as I believe him to be, of all criminal correspondence,
and yet representations might have been made to the
Home Secretary, which might have justified him in

opening his letters.—(Hear, hear.) A Member of Par-
liament, ho steeds up here and puts so grave a ques-
ties, tinder so !.!J.z..v.- 00 imprztation, 155 utelitestion-
,
shit. right, to tie, prieeeeeste enteoely 076; ail oy ;:le(oocr.,
of this to recei% rt an aI.SW, r to tits questien.
It is of the greatest importance to Members of the House
that their correspondence should be inviolate, and that
all communications passing between them and their
constituents should be of the most free and confidential
character.—(Hear, hear.) To Members of this House—
the great inquest of the nation—people are sometimes
in the habit of addressing letters, in which much is some-
times stated which should not be mentioned, much that
may be disapproved of, much that it would have been
far better to have suppressed—but still, Sir, the dispo-
sition in a Member of Parliament to receive corn-
plainta is a virtue and a merit, and he dis-
charges his duty by sa doing. (Hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, if such correspondence is to be subject to the
inspection of our political opponents, to men, it may be,
of the strictest honour and integrity, still they are our
political opponents—have their minds heated by the
party conflicts which nightly take place here, and are is
that frame of mind when they may interpret senti-
ments, perfectly harmless in themselves, into evil, and
put a construction upon them which never was intended
by the writer—(Hear, hear)—never once entered
his head. And this power allows such men to
open a correspondence, in its nature the most
secret, and gives them an opportunity of prying into
those very points upon which we are most opposed.
When any Member of the House of Commons offers to
prove that his letters have been opened, and offers to
submit proof that such has been the case, he has a
right, in my opinion, to substantiate and have his cha-
racter cleared up, for, if such suspicion is justifiable, he
ought not to continue a Member of that House.—(Elear,
hear.) If, on the other hand, he has bet nso treated
without any cause, he has every right to re•
paration. If the Hon. Gentleman's motion had
concluded with calling for a Committee to in-
quire into the propriety of seriously considering
whether we are not now in a condition to legislate
upon this subject, I would have given my
support to the motion. To a proposal for in-
quiry into the complaints of a Member of Parlia-
ment, who complains that his letters have been impro-
perly opened, I do not think there could be any reason-
able objection.—(Cheers.)
Mr. J. WORTLEY would not support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and thought that the re-
port of the Secret Committee fully exculpated the Right
Hon. the Secretary of State for the thane Department.
The lion. Member for Montrose, with that justice
and impartiality for which he has ever been remarkable,
deprecated the tone in which the Hon. Member for
Finsbury had brought that matter forward, and looking
to the quarter from which it came, looking to the per-
severance with which the accusation was pressed against
the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Mr. J. Wortley) was im-
pressed with the full conviction that the object
sought for was to attach a stigma to the
name of the Right Honourable Baronet which
was most unjust. He put it to any Hon. Member in
that House to suppose himself in the position of the
Right Hon. Baronet—the country in a state of tumult,
and the responsibility of preserving order altogether
resting on the shoulders of the Right Hon. Baronet, and
would any Hon. Member say that, possessing that power,
and knowing that it was exercised in similar cases by his
predecessors, would any Hon. Member, in such a case,
not have acted as did the Right Hon. Baronet? He had
not used this power in a greater degree than had others
in his position, and he excelled many of those in the
preciseness and punctuality he exhibited in the exercise
of a disagreeable duty. He would not allow warrants to
remain in force longer than was absolutely necessary.
It had been said that the Right Hon. Baronet had made
an unconstitutional use of this power; but could any man
say that the power itself was illegal or unconstitu-
tional? And it remained yet to be proved where the Right
Hen. Baronet had abused the exercise of the power.
Would they say that no letters should be opened ?
Why, it was well known that letters containing ex-
plosive matter had been sent through the post, and
would any one venture to say hat those letters should not
be opened ?—(Laughter.) Hon. Members might laugh,
but such things had been done. It had else been said that
even the correspondence of foreign ministers had been
violated, and that this circumstance had disgraced the
Government of England in the eyes of Europe.—
(Hear, hear.) But that power was not only exercised in
this country but in every nation of Europe. Were they
to have another Committee on that subject? That was
the question. There was another and a more important
question. On what grounds were they to give that
Committee? Had they within those walls mere horn ur-
able men than those who had formed that Committee?
The Hon. Member for Montrose suggested that they
should have a public Committee, but if that Committee
were constituted would they get the Noble Lord oppo-
site or the Right Lion. Baronet on that side to give any
information on this subject, when such information would
be afterwards laid before the public. What ground then
was really alleged for asking for this Committee ? The
lion. Member for Finsbury said, in the first place, that
he was not put upon the Committee. If a Member of
that House brought an accusation against another Hon.
Member, surely it could not he thought that the accuser
should sit as a judge in his own case. Could it then be
asked in fairness that the Hon. Member should sit on
that Committee ? Had he no personal interest in this
matter?—(Hear, hear.) They had the Hon. Member's
own words when introducing the subject, that he stood
in that House as a double accuser, and was it right, or
just or reasonable that he should be alloyed, then, to
appear on this Committee ? The thing was prepos-
terous.—(Hear, hear.) lie had had an opportunity of
having his witnesses examined under the most favour-
able circumstances, and he had not availed himself of it.
And why ? He would tell them why, He complained
that when be attended before the Committee to make his
charges, and when he told the Committee that he had
witnesses to call, they wished to hear his own evidence
first. The Hon. Member then said, " No, I won't tell
you the grounds on which I advance these charges ; I
won't give you the date of the letters ; I won't give you
the names of the parties." The House naturally enough
wished to know why he wished to be present at the
examination of the evidence, and the reason given was,
forsooth, that the lion. Gentleman wished to protect his
witnesses.—(Cheers, and counter cheers.) If these wit-
nesses were indeed to be examined at quarter sessions, or
in the courts of the Old Bailey, by perhaps not the most
sensible or sensitive of counsel—(Laughter)—amid loud
laughter from the listening galleries, then, indeed, the
lion. Member might speak of protecting his witnesses.
But in a Private Committee of that House, they
might have been examined with perfect safety.—(A
laugh.) On what principle, then, did the Hon. Member
refuse to permit the examination of his witnesses ? They
well knew that when they wished to appeal to the pas-
sions out of doors, or in the jury-box, they made the not
calling witnesses a pretext for such a course—(Cheers)
—and exactly so had the Hon. Gentleman acted his part
on this occasion.— (Continued cheering from the Tory
benches.) The Hon. Gentleman complained that his
letter had been broken open, and he called this a breach
of privilege. A breach of privilege ! Why the act of
1733 expressly excepted the warrants granted by
the Home Secretary—(Cheers and counter-cheers, in
which Mr. Duncombe heartil joined.) The Secret Com-
mittee proved that warrants had been granted before
exercising that power.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Name. name.—(Cheers from the
Opposition.)
Mr. J. WORTLEY—The Hon. Member's name is
not here.—(Continued cheering from the Liberal side of
the House.) Am I to understand that the Hon. Mem-
be'r's accusation is that his letters were opened without
a warrant ?_(Opposition cheers.) The Honourable
Member does not answer. Has it been proved
that the Honourable Member's letters have been
opened at at all.—(Tory cheers.)
Mr. DU NCOMBE—I have no doubt of it.—(Cheers.)
Mr. J. WORTLEY—The charge was, that his letters
were wantonly opened. If so, then the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had abused the trust reposed in him—(Tremen-
dous cheering)—and the Hon. Member for Finsbury
ought to impeach him for the offence. The Hon. Mem-
ber did not do so. And why ? Because, if he came
forward he should be obliged to state in detail the
grounds of his chatge. He shrunk from that ordf al, yet
he sought this Committee. It was reported that Go-
vernment sent down officers to the disturbed districts to
examine into certain matters, and that letters were in
the course of that inquiry opened and read. Was it not
possible that some of these might have been addressed
to the Hon. Member for Finsbury? And were his letters
to be held sacred, because the Hon. Gentleman was a
Member of that House? He (Mr. Wortley) was in
those very districts in 1842, and he was well aware
of the disaffected feeling prevailing among the classes,
and he in common with the country felt himself under
an eternal debt of gratitude and obligation to the Right
Hon. Gentleman for the firmness he exhibited at -that
trying period. Let the House contrast the measures of
the past and the present under similar circumstances.
In 1839 they had a conspiracy of the most dangerous
character, and he happer.ed to be in a court of justice in
York where certain Chartists, the persons with whom the
Hon. Member corresponded, were tried for having in their
possession infernal machines.—{Shouts of laughter.)
At that time a spy in the witness-box confessed to him
that he was employed by Government from whom he had
received 801. In 1842 they had no spies employed, and
peace was preserved without bloodshed and without the
punishment of death being once inflicted. A tumult,
which at first was so general and so well organised, was
extit guished almost without military assistance or any
monstration of physical power. He felt that if they
granted this inquiry it would be censuring the Committee
which had already reported on the subject, and be se-
conding the charges which had been so pertinaciously
advanced by the Hon. Member.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. WARD was of opinion that that House would not
be warranted, after the speech he had heard from the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, in refusing him the Com-
mittee of inquiry he called for, with a view to elucidating
the causes for the opening of his letters.—(Hear, hear.)
It had been said that those letters were opened because
of his correspondence with Chartists ; but he (Mr.
Ward) would ask, were not all public men, and particu-
larly Members of Parliament, subject to such corre-
spondence as well as the Hon. Member for Finsbury ?
—(Hear, hear.) Was net every man holding a public
position liable to be brought into a correspondence with
the people ? The duties that those men had to discharge
were of a very important character ; not, perhaps, of a
nature as important as the lion. Gentlemen opposite,
who were entrusted with the conservation of the public
peace, but still a sacred duty ; and, therefore, those men
were liable to have letters addressed to them from per-
sons in a position which might create suspicion. - (Hear.
hear.) Admitting all the painful facts that had been
stated by the lion. Member opposite, as to the bloody
conspiracy that had been discovered at York, yes why
he had with men in humble
should not corresponderv.e
station of life, although engaged in those bad practice-.
with a view tit dissuading them from those erroneous and
pernicious acts?—(Hear, hear.) But to return to the
report of the Committee, he (Mr. Ward) did not Mall