The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

NATIONAL; SOCIETY-IRELAND.

Mr. SHAW presented a petition from Dublin praying
that the patronage of the Government might be equally ex-
tended to the several educational establishments in Ireland.
He stated that they had presented a petition previously to
the House, in which they had prayed to be relieved from
the injurious partiality which had been shown to the Na-
tional Society of Ireland, and stating that a portion of
the grant had been devoted to Protestant schools. They
prayed to be relieved from the difference thus made in favour
of the National Society.
INCOME-TAX.

Lord OSSULSTOI4 presented a petition from Wooller, in
Northumberland, for a repeal of so much of the income-tax as
was levied on trades and professions.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS ACT.
Mr. BLAKE presented a petition from Kilmean, in the
county of Cork, ♦ery numerously and respectably signed, com-
plaining of the provisions of the late Charitable Bequests Act,
particularly that part of it which proposed to abolish certain
monastic institutions which had been found very useful.
STOKE-UPON-TRENT. _ _ _

Mr. RICARDO presented a petition from the inhabitants of
Stoke-upon-Trent, praying that a public market should be
erected in that town.

RAILWAYS.

31r. 0. GORE presented a petition from a place, the name
of ,Ahicb we could not hear owing to the noise that prevailed, in
favour of the Cheshire Junction Railway.
HUNGERFORD SUSPENSION BRIDGE.

—.—
Mr. HAWES presented a petition, praying for a further ex-
tension of powers to the Hungerford Suspension Bridge
Company.
POST-OFFICE INQUIRY.
Mr. WAKLEY moved that the petition from certain
electors and other inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury, re-
lating to the Post-office inquiry, which bad been presented on
the 27th inst., be printed with the Votes.—Agreed to.;
WINDOW-TAX.
Lord DUNCAN gave notice that, instead of moving the
resolution which he had put upon the vapor, he should, on
Monday, March 17, move for a Committee to inquire respect-
ing the window- tax.
EAST INDIA COMPANY.—SUGAR DUTIES.
Mr. ASTELL presented a petition from the Hon. the Pro-
prietoss of East India Stock, agreed to that day, against the
diseriminating duty upon white sugars.
On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the petition was
read by the Clerk at the table.
POST-OFFICE SPY SYSTEM.

Captain PECHELL presented a petition complaining of the
openiLg of Mr. Duncombe's letters, and praying for a Parlia-
mentary inquiry.
FOREIGN ESPIONAGE.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON presented a petition from a foreign
gentleman resident in this country, but whose name, from the
noise in the House and in the gallery, it was impossible
to hear, praying the House to interfere with the powers of
the Executive Government when exercised in co-operation with
foreign Governments in their endeavours to control tire actions
of foreigners resident in this country. Ile stated that it the
proceedings of foreigners in this country were to be regulated
by the rules adopted by the Austrian Government, it must put
an end to all freedom of discussion on political topics,
and of that liberty which was the peculiar boast of England.
That it would further the ends of foreign espionage, and.would
render nugatory all the efforts to promote freedom in the
world, and would convert that which was merely intended for
legitimate efforts fur the improvement of a country into a
colourable act of conspiracy and high treason. He, theiefore,
pra)ed the House to interlere, and in some way modify the use
of the powers of the Executive Government in their control
over foreigners, and collusion with foreign States.
MARRIAGE (IRELAND) ACT.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said, that with regard to the
question which had been asked by the Hon. Member for
Belfast (Mr. Ross), as to whether the Government in-
tended to amend the Act with regard to mixed
marriages, celebrated by Roman Catholic clergymen,
he begged to say that it was the intention of the Government
to bring in a Bill to amend that Act.; but as the Bill had not
yet come into operation, he thought it would be better to wait
and see how it would work.
MR. ROEBUCK AND THE ABSENT IRISH
MEMBERS.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that be bad a question to ask
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, for the purpose of
asking which he had come expressly Irom Ireland.— (Laughter.)
As this was a question referring to a matter in which he felt
that his character as a Member of that House, and as a gentle-
man, was at stake, he trusted he was not asking too
much of the House in begging to be allowed
to make a few preliminary remarks by way
of explanation of the grounds on which he asked it.—( Hear,
hear.) A very short time since he saw with considerable sur-
prise a speech attributed to the Hon. Gentleman in the 2 imes
newspaper.—( Order, order. )
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member was irregular
in referring to a newspaper for what was said in that House in
a previous debate.
Jr. ROCHE—WeII, then, I heard of a speech which
has been attributed to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman,
in which I find that he used the followi9 words, in alluding
to a large budy of the Irish Members :—" hey have run away
from their posts."—(Order, order. )
'I he SPEAKER—It is quite evident the Hon. Gentle-
man is referring to a speech made by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath daring the present session, and it is quite
irregular for any Hun. Gentleman to allude to a previous de-
bate dui ing the same session.
Mr. ROCHE—I may be permitted at any rate to ask this
question. Certain observations I understand were made—
supposing that they were made—(Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER said he was sure the House would feel
that it was quite impossible that the Hon. Member could be
allowed to Teter to any words spoken in a previous debate.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

On the reading of the order of the day for going into a Com-
mittee of Ways and Means,
Mr. DUNCOMBE rose to move, " That certain officers be-
lunging to her Majesty's Post-office do attend this House at
its neat meeting, for the purpose of informing this House under
what authority they had been parties to the detaining, delaying,
or opening any post letters of Thomas Slingsby Duncombe,
Esquire, a Member of this House." IThe Honourable
Member said he very much regretted that the little
progress which had been made in public business on
1 uesday evening last had prevented him from bringing for-
ward the motion of which he bad given notice. In
again calling, as lie felt himself compelled to do, the
attention of the House to the very grave subject a hick had
already occupied tuo much of its time ; he thought that he
should be able to prove that no blame on account of that occu-
pation of time was attributable to himself. Not being able
to bring the question forward the other evening, he had
no alternative but to take the earliest opportunity of
setting this question again fairly bef're the public. Now what
occurred on a former occasion ? He was told in the first place
that he had no evidence at all of his letters having
beets intercepted at the Post-office; and, secondly, that
even if he did possess information enabling him to
prove that interception of his letters had taken place
that information could only have been obtained by corrupting
the officers of that establishment. The Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Newark (Lord J. Manners), for whom he entertained
a deep respect, said that if what he had stated was true he
was a degraded man; while the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford said that no innocent man would complain
of the opening of his letters. He need not state what was the
inference to be drawn from the latter statement. If, however,
the House would give him the opportunity—and even after the
display of injustice which took place on the previous evening,
he still hoped they would not refuse it—he would prove
that he was innocent as regarded the imputation which hung
over him on account of the opening of his letters.
Now, he asked, what had occurred in reference to this subject?
He did the other evening, and he did new, altogether disclaim
any personal hostility to any individualon the opposite benches.
what he said then he would again state, that whatever responsi-
bility attached to the fact of having opened his letters, must be
shared by all of her Majesty's Ministers, that they must all bear an
equal share of responsibility with respect to it.—( Hear, hear.)
He was obliged to address himself to the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because if
any person issued a warrant for that opening of his letters, he
must have been the person who issued it. It that warrant were
issued, he (Mr. Duncombe) would not believe it was done
with the knowledge or sanction of the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Ministers. He would not
now believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, knew any thing at all about •the matter ;
he did nu believe that the. Right Honourable Gentleman was
ever consulted as to whether his letters should be opened
or not • he acquitted him entirely of it, and he did
not believe that if be had known it, he would have
permitted it. Whatever offence his observations gave
to that bench, the whole of the Ministry must
share it among them.—( Hear, hear.) Now, what had oc-
curred in reference to this question? When he presented to
this House the petition of M. Mazzini, he certainly then knew
nothing at all of his letters having been opened. As far as he
was concerned the House should now know all the
truth. When he presented Mr. Rlazzini's petition he knew
nothing of the opening of his letters, he did not even
suspected that the Government would hue perpetrated so
mean and base -an act as that of opening his letters. That
was on the 14th of June. He said this in answer to the Hon.
Member for Pomfret, because that Hon. Gentleman said that
he (Mr. Duncombe) must have known whether he presented
Mazzini's petition, that his letters had been opened.
He knew nothing cf that sort. On the 24th of June
he piesented the petition of M. Stolzman, he knew
nothing even then, and did not suspect that his letters had
been stopped. On the 2d of July he received some informa-
tion from M. Mazzini in the. interim, with respect to
certain parties connected with the Post-office. He
understood there was a general rumour, a common
subject of conversation in the establishment, which was simply
this,—that the clerks and sorters, and sub- sorters, were in the
habit of saying, " What is the use of Mr. Duncombe's making
a bother about the letters of foreigners, he. had .much better
look after the villainy that is being • perpetrated
towards his own." And he should be able to prove that if
they would allow him the opportunity of a Committee. On
hearing this he certainly pricked up his ears—(Laughter)—he
asked M. Mazzini if he could produce the persons who could
prove these conversations. He said he could, but told
him that in' the meantime, he (Mr. Duncombe) had
better make a motion in the House for a Committee of
inquiry into the wwking of the inner or secret office of the
Post-office. He therefore gave notice of a motion of that sort,
and said that if he could only get a Committee of Inquiry,
that be would ascertain the Eames of parties, which were
notorious in the Post-office, and that he would have
the whole thing ont. He gave notice of a
motion of inquiry into the working into this inner

office, and into the duties of the persons employed is it,
with a view of ascertaining by what authority they acted.
Well, how was that met ? He had said, in introducing that motion,
that-the question was no longer between M. Alazzini and the
Government—it was no longer
:between him and the Right"
Honourable Baronet, but it was a question between the
people of England and her Majesty's Ministers, and that the
people wished to know whether these letters were the property of
the Secretary of State or not. The Right Hon. Baronet then said
that he agreed with him (Mr. Duncombe) that the question
had gone so far that it could not stop there—that it was a
question between the Government and the people of England,
and that it was quite right that the people of England should be
satisfied on the pint. How did he propose to satisfied them?
Instead of adopting the proposal made by him (Mr. Dun-
combe), himoved an amendment that a Secret Committee should
be appointed. The Right Hon. Gentleman named that Com-
mittee—he named his own jury—reserving to himself at the
same time, the right of appeal from the decision of that tri-
bunal, and of course he (Mr. Duncombe) reserved to himself
equally the right of appeal; and in exercise of that right he
bad called the attention of the House as early as he could during
the present session, the report being presented late in the last
session, to what he considered the unsatisfactory and evasive
character of that report. In doing so he had subjected him-
self to a number of insinuations, and he could get no satisfaction
whatever on the subject Amongst those insinuations the Hon.
Member for Pontefract had told him (Mr. Duucorube) that
his name had been associated with persons who had been under
the sentence of the law. He asked the Hon. Member to name
them, and he mentioned Mr. Lovett. Well, what was the case
of Mr. Lovett? He (Mr. Duueombe) certainly had taken
up his cause, and the consequence was, that during the
incarceration of Messrs. Lovett and Collins at Warwick,
their treatment was modified, and, instead of being
treated as felons, they were treated as political prisoners
ought to be treated. But would any one say that that
was a justification of the Government opening his letters. Be-
fore that time he had never heard of Messrs. Lovett and
Collins. Then the Hon. and Learned Member for Both had
had stated that he (Mr. Duncombe) had been in correspon-
dence with certain persons who had threathened to
burn the town of Sheffield. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
defended those individuals. He was their counsel, and
he defended them with so much ability, that they got four
years' incarceration in the House of Correction.—(Loud
laughter.) Was there any proof that he (Mr. Duncombe)
was connected with those individuals? He had never beard
their names, nor had he ever held the slightest correspondence
with them. Was there in that, then, any ground for
opening his letters ? The first time he had ever been
connected with the Chartist parties was in 1841, just previou's
to the general election, when he presented a petition for them,
praying for an amnesty so all political prisoners, and sfgned by
1,700,000 individuals. These political prisoners had been
imprisoned for political offences committed during the period
that his Noble Friend was in office. In the year 1841, in
the month of June or July, he (Mr. Duncombe) moved an
humble address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty
would be graciously pleased to order the case of those
prisoners should be taken into consideration with a view to
their release. Well, what was the result? The House was
equally divided upon the motion, and upon the casting vote of
the Speaker that address was rejected. Was that any reason
why his letters should have been opened?— ( Hear, and a laugh.)
Then, again, in the year 1842, in the month of May, he pre-
sented a petition upon the national condition, signed by
3,300,000 members of the working-classes. There were great
differences of opinion as to the truth of the allegations con-
tained in that petition ; many said that the expres-
sions contained in it were foolish and indiscreet, and that
they could not be' proved. Perhaps so ; but the petitioners
prayed to be called to the bar of this House, but that prayer
was rejected. Next, in the year 1842 an outbreak and
strike took place in Staffordshire; and the opinion
expressed upon that occasion by the Right Mon. Baronet, the
Secretary for the Home Department, was, that he thought the
whole thing had been very much exaggerated. and that there
was nothing whatever political in it.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he
(Mr. Duncombe) apprehended that his letters were opened
upon political grounds, and in connexion with supposed political
offenders—he assumed that such was the case. Well, in 1842
the manufactu'ing districts were in a frightfully disturbed
state ; but at that time the conduct of the working
classes was extremely creditable to them. For three days it
had been stated that that town was in possession of what was
called the mob ; but notwithstanding that, such was the re-
spect and regard of the people for private property, that not
even a pane of glass was broken. Therefore there could have
been no reason for opening his letters then ; yet he was in
a position to prove that at that very time his letters had been
opened at the General Post-office. He had now with him in
the House some letters he had received at that time;
but there were no letters of a treasonable character
amongst them, so that if any such were sent to
him at that time, the Right Honourable Baronet
must have kept them himself.—( Great lauAhter. )
Amongst the letters of a " suspicious-looking character " that
he then received—( A laugh ) he now held one in his hand,
which certainly appeared as if, to use the technical phrase, it
had been " operated upon"—(Loud laughter)—and if closely
examiued, he believed there could be no doubt that it
had been " operated"upon.—(Laughter. ) This letterhe would
now read ; it was from Mr. Feargus O'Connor—(A laugh )
and was written during the. Nottingham election, when Mr.
Sturge was a candidate for that borough. The Honourable
Member then read the letter, the substance of which
was to this effect—" I snatch a moment from the excite-
ment of the day to send you a word or two upon what is doing
here. There never was so much excitement—so much ex-
citement as is to be witnessed here.—( Laughter.) And but for
it the Tories would he triumphant here.—( Laughter.) A num-
ber of men have come in here from Derbyshire, sent
in by the Tories, to personate, not dead, but living
voters.—( Loud laugther. , But they have been detected,
though trying to represent the real Simon Pure.—(Laughter. )
I must now stop, in order to make all right here, and then be
off to a village, 4 miles off, to make all right there." The writer
then called attention to a placard he inclosed, and concluded by
saying that, " if llobhouse was the au'hor of it. he should never
again venture to show his nose in Nottingham."—( Laugh er.)
That was the sort of correspondence which he had re-
ceived during the whole of that time. In the course of
1842 he had no communication whatever w'th Mr.
Fergus O'Conner ; and, therefore, he should be glad
to know upon what grounds his letters were opened.
—( Hear.) If he could prove that they had been opened
by the servants of the Post-office. Let them them show
their authority for opening his letters.— (Hear, hear.)
If they produced the authority, then it would be
for them to justify it. Either the Government
had issued warrants for the opening of his letters, or they had
been opened without warrants.—( Hear, hear.) If they had
been opened without a warrant, then, no doubt, a breach of
privilege had (been committed. He did not know, nor did he
on the former occasion make this a question of privilege. That
was a question which the House would decide when it heard the
evidence.