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

T-iIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19 1845.

that charge, many people thought it was imaginary. But what
did they find in the report? The Committee of the House of
Commons stated that they believed formerly such a practice
prevailed in the time of Mr. Charles James Fox and Lord Car-
marthen, but the practice of opening diplomatic correspondence
had for some time past been discontinued.—(The Hon. Gen-
tleman here read the extract at length, bet in a very rapid
tore.) But from the Lords' report it appeared that this
phrase of " discontinued for some time " meant only disconti-
nued since the preceding month of June. (He then read
the paragraph from the Lords' report.) He asked the
House to set the statements of the two Committees one
against the other. The statement of the Commons was a most
disingenuous quibble.—( Hear.) He would say that the prac-
tice was most disgraceful, and injurious to the reputation of
Britain among other nations.—( Hear.) If Hon. Mem-
bers would take the trouble to read what took place in respect
to the Venetian Ambassador in the year 1641, they would see
in what way the character of the country was damaged by
such treachery. They would find it recorded in the Journals of
the House of Lord..—(The Hon. Gentleman then reada letter
addressed in that year to the House of Lords, complaining that
the writer's letters had been opened in the Foreign-office, and
that when he remonstrated with the Foreign Secretary,
the latter assured him that it had been done by
mistake. He was satisfied, trusting in the honour of the
Court of England; but he found that the treachery was re-
peated, and he prayed the House, for the character of the
Crown and people of England, to interpose and prevent the re-
petition of "so damnable and disgraceful a system." The
House of Lords sent a deputation of Peers to apologise, and
to assure the Ambassador that the practice should be discon-
tinued; but he retused to accept any amends until an Extraor-
dinary Ambassador should be sent to the States of Venice to
apologise, and he himself should have received an order on
the Postmaster-General to send his correspondence direct and
unopened. At the recommendation of the House of
Lords these things were done, and the humiliating affair ter-
minated:l He should not wonder if all the States with which
this country had relations, should require a similar apology.—
( Hear, and a laugh.) Ile came now to the charge which he
had made respecting the opening of letters in the north of Eng-
land. The Committee denied that there had been a roving
commission appointed to open letters in that part of the coun-
try, but what were their own statements ? They said that they
found that in 1842, when there was a violent outbreak in the
north, a clerk from the Post-office was sent down on a war-
rant from the Secretary of State, with authority to open the let-
ters of six persons, and, at the same time, another clerk was sent
to open the letters of ten othere, and afterwards, of one indivi-
dual, making in all seventeen. [He read from the report.] He
contended that there was no precedent for this conduct. It
was absolutely illegal.—( Hear, hear.) Who could tell
where this opening of letters ended ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Commissioners were not to open any other letters than
those described in the warrant—it was rather a vague order:
They were to open the letters of six parties named therein.
Now did that mean the letters addressed to these individuals
or letters written by them? He supposed it meant both.
Now were they to ascertain that a particular letter was in the
handwriting of a certain individual? There was a great simi-
larity in handwritings, end the superscriptions of letters might
be attributed to persons who really did not write them. They
might say Mr. So and So wrote this letter," but how were
they to prove it ? They could not do it positively by the
handwriting. Then he wished to know what directions were
given to the Commissioners to enable them to conclude
what letters were written by either of the,e six individuals?
forTh poweret yh ought
to entrust
another
no then to
(11r.individualsfurtherthem
anythingexplanationCommittee
r
onthis the way.todeal Government
ofsomehave
d
to have
with a a
letters were sent to the Horns-office foe examination. He
never made such a statement—he never said the mail-bags had
been opened at the Home-office ; but he did state, and he was
prepared to prove, that certain mail-bags were opened for the
purposes of the Post-office. It was suspected that some dis-
honesty was going on, and for the purpose of tracing it out
those bags were opened. He never stated that mail-bags of
letters had been sent to the Home-office for inspection ; and if
the Committee had answered the charges he did make, it would
have been much better than answering charges which had
never been heard by any one. It would appear that if a letter
bearing a particular post-mark, and written in a certain style
of writing, were dropped into the Post-office, it was imme-
diately dispatched to the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment. Now, he wished to know how they were to ascer-
tain this fact ? Many letters bore the same post-mark, and to
all appearances were directed by the same hand. Of course,
placed in this difficulty, they often opened letters which they
imagined had been written by one individual, and discovered
—no doubt to their astonishment—(Laughter)--that it con-
tained a private communication from another.—(Laughter.)
And in this way they opened everybody's letters till they
arrived at the one they wanted.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he
wanted the Government to show him any precedent to justify
this in all the annals of letter opening.—( Hear, hear, and
cheers.) He said it was of the greatest importance that they
should have an explanation upon this subject. Instead of
quoting what the Duke of Newcastle did one hundred years
ago, the Committee ought to have given a copy of the war-
rants issued by the Right Hon. Baronet. He came now to
the last charge upon this point. He thought he stated in the
.outset that his correspondence had been violated—that his
letters had been opened. Now, upon this the Committee
were perfectly decided. In his place in that House, he con-
fessed in the first instance that he had only been informed
that his letters coming through the Admiralty had been
opened. He admitted that at the time he was inclined to dis.
believe it. But although the Committee had decided upon
this, he could nevertheless prove that his letters were detained
and inspected at the Post-office, upon the authority of the
Birgit Hon. Baronet.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Now,
he must say, that he felt degraded in this
respect, he thought it. was a degradation fur
any Member of the !louse of Commons--(Loud cheering)
to feel that he was a worthy object of suspicion—that he had
been guilty of some offence which the Secretary of State
thought entitled him to open his private correspondence. He
could not conceive a greater personal insult than this.
He could not conceive a greater insult to the constituency he
represented, He was not the representative of merely a rotten
borough—Luud cheers)—but of a very large and numerous,
as well as an intelligent constituency.—(Hear, hear.) He
said, therefore, it was not merely an insult to him, but it was
a gross insult to the constituency which lie had the honour to
represent in that House.—( Hear, hear.) He would go
further. If his correspondence was not to be free, he was not
a fit representative of them. —( Cheers.) In the name,
then, of his constituency he called upon the Right
Honourable Baronet to justify, if he could do so, the
opening of his letters. He knew not what story he might
have trumped up in the Committee of the House of Commons
or the Committee of the House of Lords, but be said the
Right Hon. Baronet owed it to him and to that House.—
(Loud cheers.) He owed it to him and to his constituency to
tell them and the (louse the justification for opening his
letters.. Ile asked the Right Hon. Baronet, before he com-
plained of the fact, if the information he had received was true ?
—( Hear, hear. ) The Right lion. Baronet replied that he
(Mr. Duncombe) knew he was putting a question which he
(the Right lion. Baronet) could not answer.--( Hear,
hear.) Well, then, how stood the question between him and
the Right lion. Baronet? Why, it was this :—A Member of
the Legislature had, in the exercise of his public duty, opened
the letters of a Member of that House, and now they found
that the Secretary of State, while he had the baseness to per-
petrate this act, had not the moral courage to acknowledge it.
—(Loud cheers.) He maintained that this was a degrada-
tion reflecting not only upon himself, but upon the House.—
( Cries of " Order, order," " Chair, chair," in the midst of
which the Hoe. Member resumed his seat.)
The SPEAKER informed the Hon. Member that he had
used an expression which reflected upon the individual charac-
ter of a Member of that House.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said he applied the observation to the
Right Hon. Baronet in his Ministerial capacity, and to this ob-
servation he would adhere.—(Cheers.) Another complaint
he had to make was, that the Committee had nc t referred to
this subject in their report. He bad made the same charge be-
fore them in the room up stairs, when he was called before
theni ; but still they were entirely silent upon this point. Now
what was the inference to be drawn from this ? The inference
was that there was nothing in his correspondence to justify the
course pursued by the Post-office gentlemen. The same jus-
tice which had been rendered to the Right lion. Baronet, had
been refused to him. Nothing was mentioned in the report to
vindicate him before the House of Commons, and hence a
direct answer was placed in the hands of the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet. He was placed in this difficulty—he bed been sacri-
ficed for the purpose of screening the Right lion. Baronet, and
this was an additional reason why another inquiry should be
instituted. He called for that inquiry in vindication of his
own character. Well, then, the Committee ended their report in
what he must call a sort of summing up ; but they altogether eva-
ded the question whether they would recommend that this power
should be abolished at all. And if any gentleman had taken
the trouble to read the concluding part of the report, and
could make anything of it, he was sure it was more than the
Committee could do themseives.—( Laughter.) Some allu-
sion, however, was made in the report to Ireland, but this was
merely to implicate the predecessors of the present Govern.
went. But Lord Normanby, who had presided over that
country for five years, stated in his place in the other House
of Parliament, that never while he presided over the Home
Department of this country, or held the Lord-Lieutenancy of
Ireland, had he issued a single warrant for political purposes.
Ile (i'slr. Duncombe) had seldom an opportunity of agreeing
with the organ of the Government, commonly called the
Morning Ilerald. But he must, in justice to the editor of
that paper, read to the House what he (Mr. Duncombe) con-
sidered a most excellent article upon this subject. The article
alluded to referred to a charge which bad been made against
Lord Melbourne, of opening the letters of Mr. O'Connell, and
strongly demanded that an opportunity should be given to the
Noble Lord to disprove the charge. The article went on to state
that if the charge:were true, the then Government had been guilty
of a direct violation of the constitution of the country. Now, his
letters had been opened, and the Government were responsible
to him for it. It was a breach of privilege to open the letters
of any Hon. Member without an especial warrant from the
office of the Secretary of State ; and this justified him in de..
mantling an explanation from the Right. Hon. Baronet. If
the Right lion. Baronet had not issued the warrant, the indi-
viduals who opened his letters had infringed his privilege,
arid he should certainly summon them before the bar of the
House to disclose their authority. In the absence of any re-
commendation by the Secret Committee, it was left for Par-
liament to determine whether this power should be continued.
For his part he was convinced it ought to be abo-
lished altogether—( Hear, hear)—and if the House agreed
with him, there would be no necessity for further
inquiry except upon one or two points. But still it was neces-
sary that they should have another inquiry, and a conclusive
report on the subject, for the House would remember that
the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord Haddington) stated, on
the 29th of June, last year, that it was a power which had
long existed, and must always exist in any country where there
was any Government at all. The Noble Lord added, that
there could be no Government unless they were entrusted
with this odious power, and maintained that the Government
would be dissolved if this power did not exist. He said, no Go-
vernment—no honest Government—required this power. The
safety of England needed no such protection as this; and he
maintained that the honour of England and of Englishmen
demanded a full and unequivocal repeal of this odious power.
—( Hear, hear.) Entertaining these views, he had been in-
duced to trespass longer upon the attention of the House than
he had intended ; and he should conclude by moving, " That
a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the mode
in which letters have been detained; opened, and re-scaled at
the General or at any Provincial post-office, and also into the
circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has
been issued by any Secretary of State, from the Ist day of
January, 1840, to the present time ; the said Committee to
report their opinion thereon to the House, and also whether
it is expedient that the practice should be continued : —That
the report and evidence of the Secret Committee of last ses-
sion relative to the Post-office be referred to the said Com-
mittee."
The question having been put by the SPEAKER,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, when the matter was first
mooted, he thought it was consistent with his public duty that
he should abstain from discussing the manner in which he ex-
ercised the duties of his office Bet he intimated at the
came
time that if it was the pleasure of that House to institute an
inquiry, and it was the pleasure of his Sovereign to release him

' from the office he then held, he should be quite willing to make
a full disclosure of all the circumstances connected with the
case which the Hon. Member had brought before the House.
The House, however, after going minutely into the details, de-
termined that a Secret Committee was the proper tribunal for
investigating a case of this description. The Hon. Gentle-
man, in the course of his speech, had thought fit to scandalise
the latter part of the report of the Secret Committee, and he
thought, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him
to call to the recollection of the House and the country, the
way in which that Committee was first pruposed ; and here he
would take leave to remark, that it was impossible to find gen-
tlemen more entitled to the confidence of that House and of
the country, than the nine Members who constituted that Com-
mittee. He had often feared that a very large share of per-
sonal aversion had entered into this discussion ; and yet, on
the part of the Government and himself, he did not hesitate
for a moment to nominate upon the Committee a decided ma-
jority of his political opponents. The nine Members se-
lected by the House, on that occasion, were Lord
Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Thus. Baring, Sir
Wm. Heathcote, Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt,
the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Hawes. Now, the Committee so
constituted proceeded to investigate the entire subject matter
now brought under discussion for the second time by the Hon.
Gentleman. He had promised that if such a Committee were
appointed the whole of the circumstances, so far as he wee ac-
quainted with them, should be candidly laid before them He
thought he saw in the House at that moment at least a ma-
jority of that Committee, anti he would state upon his honour,
in his place in Parliament, that every minute detail, without
exception and without reservation, that was within his know-
ledge, was not extracted from him by cross-examination, but
voluntarily tendered by him to the Committee.—( Cheers. )
He asserted that he had voluntarily tendered to the Committee,
without reserve, all the information which he possesse I on the
subject. There was not a point now brought under discussion
by the Hon. Gentleman which was not the subject matter
of his (Sir James Graham's) evidence bef.tre that Com-
mittee.—( Hear, hear.) He had kept back nothing, he had
concealed nothing. If his conduct was base and mean, that
conduct had been brought under their judgment, and they had
acquitted him of baseness and meanness.—( Cheers.) He had
at least had the courage before the Committee to make a full
disclosure of the whole of his conduct. Charges of want saf
credit were easily made; and if it was consistent with the
dignity of that House to have such charges banded about, it was
a matter of the greatest indifference to him, after his conduct
had been submitted to the judgment of the nine gentlemen
who composed the Committee. He was acquitted as a gentle-
men and a Minister, and he cared not a rush what might be the
opinion of the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers.) Now,
the Hon. Gentleman said that the report of that Committee
was unsatisfactory and evasive. It was not his duty, being
the party accused, to enter into any defence of that report. There
were, however, upon that Committee some of the most experi-
enced, the most learned, and the most honourable Members of
that House. He was quite persuaded that it was not their inten-
tion to avoid any portion of the subject matter committed to
them. They were incapable of wilfully deluding that House.
He believed that House had investigated the matter with
fidelity and care ; and he was satisfied, from his knowledge of i
their character, that they had conveyed to the House the exact

mpression produced on their minds by the evidence adduced.
Now the Hon. Gentleman charged the Committee with dis-
obedience to the order of :the House. He fancied, because a
particular expression was used, that they did not trace each
warrant from the period of its being issued to that of its being
carried into effect ; and, therefore, he argued, they had dis-
obeyed the :order of the House on the subject. He (Sir J.
Graham) was confident that everything which related to the
office which he filled, in connexion with the issuing of the
warrants, had been carefully investigated. The House must
recollect that he was not the only witness who had been
called before the Committee. Every statement made by himself
was contrasted with those made by the officers of other depart-
ments, whose statements, if his were inaccurate, must have been
at variance with it. The Postmaster-General, the Secretary
of the Post-office, and all the officers connected with that de-
partment, were carefully examined as witnesses. So far from
the orders of the House being disobeyed, he was quite satisfied
that with regard to the issuing of the warrant, and in every
other respect, they had been carefully attended to and minutely
observed. But the Hon. Gentleman said that in his case there
had been unusual frequency in the exercise of the powers vested
in the Secretary of State. He conceived that this portion of
misconduct imputed to him was one of the most important mat-
ters submitted to the judgment of the tribunal appointed to in-
vestigate the subject ; and he would read to the House
the recorded judgment of that tribunal in reference
to this very point of the undue and comparative frequency of
the exercise of authority. The opinion of the Committee was
given at page 15. The Right Honourable Baronet then read
an extract from the report, stating that the warrants had been
issued with nearly equal frequency by the several Administra-
tions since 1799 ; though in certain years, in consequence of
internal commotions, it had appeared that the number of war-
rants issued by the Secretaries of State was unusually great,
while in others, for a contrary reason, it was exceedingly
small. Then, again, at page 19, it was stated with respect to
warrants, not of a criminal but of a political character, there had
not, upon an average, been more than four yearly; while the
greatest number ever issued in one year for such cases was 16.
Now, he had hitherto referred only to the report of the Com-
mittee of that House; but the House must remember that a
Committee had also been appointed by the House of Lords. In
the House of Commons, so highly was the honour of its Mem-
bers estimated, that the declaration of a Member was held
equivalent to his oath ; but in the other House of Parliament
he had been examined upon oath, and there, also, witnesses
were called who might have contradicted his statements. Fur-
ther, the Committee of the House of Lords, by the advice of
the Government, contained a majority of their political oppo-
nents. It had been said that there was no eminent lawyer, no
person who was used to the examination of witnesses. Now,
was that the fact ? Were there no experienced and eminent
lawyers on that Committee? Why, it so happened, that or,
that Committee sat two of the most distinguished lawyers now
living in this country—( Hear, hear)—both of whom had held
the Great Seal, and had been at the head of their profession.
Upon this Committee were Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham,
Lord Auckland, Lord Colchester, the Bishop of London, Lord
Somers, and Lord Colborne. The question, whether there had
been an improper exercise of the authority, was brought before
thatbody, and this was the judgment of the Lords' Committee:—
" We are bound, in conclusion, to state that, having looked back
to the proceedings of several Secretaries of State during successive
administrations for more than twenty years, we have found the
practice nearly uniform. The power has been very sparingly
exercised, and never from personal or party motives." That
was a negative to the charge of baseness and meanness which
had been brought against him---(Cheers)—never from per-
sonal and party motives ; "and that in every case it seems to
have been directed by an earnest and faithful desire to adopt
that course which appeared to be necessary, either to promote
the ends of justice or to prevent the disturbance of the public
tranquillity, or otherwise to promote the best interests of the
country." That was the recorded rudgment of the House of
Lords. Now, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to advert to a
paragraph which had recently appeared in the newspapers, that
the Secret-office, as it was termed, in the Post-office, had been
suppressed by order of the Home-office. Notwithstanding the
intimate knowledge which the Hon. Gentleman possessed of
this subject, he seemed: to have fallen into error in contra-
distinguishing that office in connexion with the Foreign-office,
from a secret office in connexion with the secret office of the
Post-office. \Vith respect to that establishment, it would
appear, from page 17, that it was conducted by officers ap-
pointed and paid by the Secretary of State fur Foreign Affairs,
from whom the orders were received, and to whom alone
they were responsible. Such an office had existed in this
country, in connexion with the Foreign Department, for more
than a century. Its existence was no new intelligence ; it ex-
isted in 1840; and no step had been taken which showed
the disapprobation of Parliament. For a long time
it had existed, not in immediate connexion with
the Post-office, though under the roof of that
establishment. He would now state that, not by an
order from the Home-office, but by an order from the Foreign
Department (as we understood the Right Hon. Baronet), it
had been removed from the Post-office, and no longer existed.
The Hon. Gentleman, in referring to the case of M. Mazzini,
had thought it consistent with his public duty to declare his
belief that the warrant presented to the Committee of both
Houses of Parliament for the opening of the letters of M.
Maezini was fabricated by him for the occasion. No other
ground for that harsh construction, which the Hon. Member
was now disposed to put on every act of his (Sir J. Graham's)
—( Hear, hear)—no other ground was adduced, except
that certain general terms were used in the report of
the House of Lords, which he thought were at variance
with the date of the warrant. The words used were
that the as arrant was in force for about four months ; whilst
the Committee of the Ilouse of Commons stated that the war-
rant was issued on the Ist of Nlarch, and revoked on the 3d of
June. He solemnly declared that the warrant was issued by ,
him on the Ist of March, and revoked on the 3d of June; the
original warrant having, he believed, been issued for four
months. He must beg to call the attention of the House to
that portion of the report which set forth the important circum-
stance, that new checks had been introduced in modern times
with respect to the issuing of the warrant. In the first place,
since the year 1822, all the originallwarrants had been recorded
in the Post. office. In 1806 regulations were made, imposing
most essential and material checks upon the issue of
these warrants. It was not possible now for the Secre-
tary of State, unknown to others, to issue a sarrant of
_v
this description. Both the Under-Secretaries of tate, and
a confidential clerk at the Post-office, were cognisant of every
matter of this description.—( Hear, hear.) So much for the
fabrication of the warrant, and the assignment to it of a false
date ; and it was impossible that he could have committed the
base and mean act attributed to him by the Hon. Gentleman,
without its being known to the two Under-Secretaries of State,
and to a confidential clerk, who, although a clerk, was a gen-
tleman in every sense of the word, and as incapable of a base
and false act of this description, as any of the Hon. Members
to whom he was then speaking.__( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He would now pass to another accusation, which had been pre-
ferred by the Hon. Gentleman against a Noble colleague of
his, upon whose honour and worth he had thought fit to
cast imputations—he referred to the Earl of Aberdeen.
Now, he was bound to state that the accusation was made in
round terms, and certainly in the most harsh and offensive
manner, but when he came to hear the grounds of the assertion
it appeared to be altogether vague. The assertion was that
the declaration made by Lord Aberdeen, in his place in the
House of Lords, was at variance with the report of the two
Houses of Parliament upon a most important fact—viz., whe-
ther M. Mazzini's correspondence was intercepted, and was
communicated to a foreign Minister. Lord Aberdeen, in his
place in Parliament, gave the most solemn denial to that asser-
tion. Now, let the House hear what the Commons said on
this point. The report said—" Such information deduced
from those letters as appeared to the British Minister calculated
to involve dangerous consequences, was communicated to a
Foreign Power; but the information so communicated was not
of a nature to compromise, and did not compromise, the safety
of any individual within the reach of that Foreign Power, nor
was it made known to that Power by what means or from
what source that information had been gained." That was the
report of the Secret Committee. What was the statement of
the House of Lords on this subject? It said, Certain parts
of the information thus obtained were communicated to a Fo-
reign Government, in so far as su :h communication appeared
to be warranted, and without names or details that might ex-
pose any individual then residing in a foreign country to dan-
ger." That was the opinion of Lord Cottenham, after all the
transactions had been fully developed. (Mr. Duncembe here
made some observations across the table, which we did not
hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman deny the
accuracy of that report? He had himself quoted that
report when he made the accusation, and was he
(Sir J. Graham) to be prevented from quoting the same re-
port, when the honour of a noble individual was assailed ?
(Cheers.) He thought be certainly might refer to the de-
cisionaof that noble individual's Peers, the majority of whom
were his political opponents, in vindication of his honour.—
(Cheers.) He could not suppose that the House
would think that his Noble Friend the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs would deliberately, in his place in
Parliament, make a declaration inconsistent with the
truth, knowing as he did that the statement would be tested by
an examination before Committees of both Houses of Parlia-
ment.---( Hear, hear.) Now, he ( Sir James Graham) per-
haps might be permitted to state an opinion, which he strongly
entertained, that with reference to this particular power—that
odious, that invidious and obnoxious power vested in the Se-
cretary of State, by warrant—he might be permitted to
state that for domestic purposes it was generally inoperative,
and the exercise of it on many accounts objectionable. With res-
pect to our fareign relations this power stood on diffe, ent grounds.
The House must remember that in this country (he thought
he said it advisedly, the only country in Europe, whatever

might be the danger to public interest from the prektlie of any
foreigner)—the Executive Government had no power vested
in them by law of averting that danger by removing a person
found abusing our hospitality. In the case to which reference
had been made, the facts were stated pretty fully in the report
of the Commons, at page 14. From the correspondence which
hail been intercepted it appeared that it was intended that a
descent should be made on the coast of Italy for the purpose of
excititag internal disturbance in that country. That there was
danger was not imaginary, but real. It was formidable, for if
it had been carried into successful execution, it was not to be
dissembled the peace of Italy would certainly have been dis-
turbed, and he believed that the peace of Europe, under those
circumstances, could not have been preserved; if an Euro-
pean war ensued, England could not have remained a mere
spectator of the quarrel. It was said that a descent
on the coast of Calabria was contemplated, and that
an unfair use was made of the information gained in
that instance, and that a trap was laid for the cor-
respondence of M. Maazini. Now, he absolutely and entirely
denied the facts upon which this assumption was grounded.
The Hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, with great
harshness said that the blood of the persons who were exe-
cuted on the melancholy occasion to which he referred must
be on the heads of persons in this country. He ( Sir James
Graham) denied in the most solemn manner that any trap had
been laid for the individuals in question. In the first place,
no descent on the coast of Calabria was expected. The con-
spirators abusing the hospitality of the British Government at
Corfu, concocted their plans there. It was not true that the
point of their destination was believed to be the coast of Ca-
labria. No information whatever had been given by the Bri-
tish Government to the Neapolitan Government on the sub-
ject. And so far from the Neapolitan Government having
prepared troops for the reception of those persons who
had been led into a trap, as had been al-
leged, those persons landed without meeting any troops.
They were arrested not by troops, but by a body similar to the
posse COM itat us in this country. It was not until the lapse of
a considerable time, during which the troops had to be sent
from a distant point by a steam-boat, that the troops of the Nea-
politan Government came into contact with those persons. He
understood that only:one of those persons was a Neapolitan, all
the other parties came from the northern parts of Italy, and had
no connexion whatever with the kingdom of Naples. He cer-
tainly could state with confidence that what 'was stated in the
report was true, that all information received through the
Post- offiee was transmitted unread to the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs. It was the solemn assertion of the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs that he never transmitted to
any foreign Government any document, but that he only "gave
the substance of the information."—(lronical cheers.) He
was now frankly avowing what had been done. His Noble
Friend endeavoured by giving that information to check a dan-
gerous movement, but he had done nothing calculated to
compromise the life of any individual.—( Hear,
.hear. )
The Hon. Gentleman had teferred to a Pole of the name of
Graliski, and said that information had been given to a fo-
reign Power with reference to Polish movements—informa-
tion which might have compromised the safety of innocent per-
sons resident in Poland. Against this Graliski a warrant was
issued, and certainly he (Sir James Graham) was hound to
state, upon his own responsibility, that he issued that warrant
under circumstances which, if presented again for his con-
sideration, would lead him to take the step which he had
taken on that occasion. The Hon. Gentleman, referring to
an expression in the report, intimated that he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) had issued general warrants. Now, he could only say
that he had never issued a warrant of that, description—a
warrant without the name of the party being set forth. He
could say confidently, that on no one occasion had he issued
anything approaching to a general warrant. He thought he
might now, with propriety, drop for the present this most
painful subject. With respect to this power being vested in the
Secretary of State, he did not believe that any further
information could be obtained than that which was before the
House. The real question was, were they prepared to revoke
the power which by statute had been given to the Secretary of
State ever since the reign of Queen Anne ? They could not
require further information on the subject. Everything that
inquiry could give was now before them. If it should be found
necessary for the 'public safety to limit this power, the proper
course would be to repeal the statute, to pass another, and im-
pose the necessary checks. But if it had to be exercised by
the Secretary of State it was impossible for that individual
faithfully, fearlessly, and honestly, for the public, to exercise
the powers entrusted to him by his Sovereign, and not by the
Sovereign without the confidence of that House, for without
the confidence of that House no Sovereign could maintain a
Minister for a single day. He said, that if it was for the good
of the public that the Secretary of State was to be trusted with
the exercise of those powers, it was incompatible with the
honest, fearless, and advantageous exercise of those powers,
that he should be called upon to declare publicly what were
the reasons and what were the circumstances which had led him
to exercise them.—(Cheers.)
Mr. SHEIL then rose and addressed the House as follows :
—Sir, in what I have to address to the House I shall be very
short, and I hope very temperate. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man has unequivocally admitted that the letters which were
addressed to M. Mazzini were opened, and the substance of the
information contained in those letters communicated to a foreign
power. The report says so, and the evidence of the Right Hon.
Gentleman is almost more than confirmatory of the report.
The Right Hon. Gentleman justified that proceeding. This is
not the time to consider whether that proceeding was right or
not. That question was not raised. My Hon. Friend will
have an opportunity of raising that question by bringing the
subject before the House and the country upon another and
more fitting occasion. But thus stands the broad fact—the let-
ters of M. Mazzini were opened, and those letters regularly
conveyed to him after being opened, himself being unaware
that the correspondence was disclosed. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man says no trap was laid. It would have been as well, then, to
have informed M. Mazzini that his letters had been opened.
The power was exercised by the Right Hon. Gentleman at
the Post-office, and certainly the substance of the information
thus obtained was communicated to a foreign power. The
Committee state—" The facts of the case, as tar as the Com-
mittee feel at liberty to disclose them, appear as follows." It
appears, therefore, that there were facts which the Committee
did not think themselves at liberty to disclose. Ido not mean
to say that a Committee of Secrecy, appointed under such pe-
culiar circumstances, was not justified in exercising this discre-
tion ; but it is clear that the whole is not known, there is no
suppressio pea, but suppressio yeri is admitted. It is re-
markable that this passage occurs in the report of the Com-
mittee—" They think it most desirable to make known that
the above three warrants are the only warrants to open letters
which the present Government had issued." That question
was not referred to them. The Committee gratuitously state
that these three are the only instances in which the present
Government have exercised this power. The powers exercised
by other Governments had nothing to do with the question.
Ipon this part of the case—fulfilling the engagement—to be very
brief, I may say, that it is still more objectionable. The Com-
mittee state the names of persons who are no longer living in
reference to warrants of this kind which have been issued.
They then,„proceed to state that they will not mention the
names of any living individuals, with certain exceptions. The
passage runs thus :—" Your Committee abstained from giving
particular information concerning any warrant, and from
naming a single individual whose letters were directed to be
opened ; but they have been induced, with respect to the mode
of executing certain warrants, to mention the names of parties
included in them, inasmuch as they are connected with the
circumstances which mainly led to the inquiry your Committee
were appointed to enter into." They accordingly proceed to
mention the names of two Poles, and I think M. Mazzini.
Now, I want to know why it is that nothing has been said
about the letters of the Hon. Member for Finsbury—( Loud
cheers)—if that Committee have adhered practically to the
rules they themselves laid down ?—( Hear, hear.) The names
of two Poles were mentioned, the name of M. Mazzini was
mentioned. Were those the only names specifically men-
tioned in the House of Commons ?—( Hear, hear. ) The Hon.
Member for Finsbury, the representative of a great section of
this metropolis—( Hear, hear)—boldly stated in the House of
a Thes
oname
was_ specified
mentioned. as
that madeheer s. w
Commons that his privileges as a Member of Parliament were
violated—(Loud cheers)—and that his letters had been opened.
Why is it f distinctly
that the Committee said nothing
Mr. Duncombe ?
—( Loud cheers.) The statement was repeated before the
Committee. You excluded Mr. Duncombe who brought the
charge.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. Duncombe offered to appear
—(C)ithT rhegeraerdwa to s
Mazzini.a statement
beforethe Committee to corroborate the charge, to prove the
accusation—the Committee refused to allow him to conduct
the case, or, I believe, to hear him.—( Hear, hear.) Under

those circumstances it is a matter of legitimate curiosity to
know what justification there is on the part of the Com-
mittee for omitting all mention of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury.—(Loud cheers.) How stands the fact ? When the
Right Hon. Gentleman was first interrogated on the subject,
he refused to give an answer—( Hear, hear)—he
sheltered himself behind official prerogative.—( Cheers. )
When public clamour arose the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Government, who observed how
uneasy was the beating of the public pulse, came down to the
House and said that a Committee would be conceded—that
which in the first instance was withheld.—(Hear, hear.) A
Committee was granted—" a great fact "—but the fact, of all
others the most important,—the opening of the letters of a
Member of Parliament—was not mentioned.—( Hear, hear.)
I now ask this question of you—(Cheers)—Tell me, you (turn-
ing to Sir J. Graham), Rho answer for Mazzini, who aewered
for the two Poles,—tell me will you answer whether you opened
the letters of Mr. Duncombe ?—( Vehement cheering. )
Lord SANDON rose; but having remained silent for a short
time, a cry of " Question, question I" was raised by the Oppo-
sition. He said he did not catch the question of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, and begged he would repeat it.
Mr. SHEIL—I did not a,k any question of the Noble Lord
(Loud Cheers.) It was of the Right Hon. Gentleman I asked
the question—(Loud cheers)—l asked the question of him, and
I now repeat the interrogatory—(Loud cheering. )
Lord SANDON said that, as the question of the Right Hon.
Gentleman was not addressed to him, but to the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and as he did not think it consistent with his duty to give
any answer—(lronical cheers)—he believed it was his duty,
as Chairman of the Committee, to make a few observations.—
, ( Hear, hear.) He begged to remark, in the first place, that
the members of the Committee laboured under a great disad-
vantage, because, from the circumstances under which the
Committee was appointed—the House having thought fit to
make it a secret one, thereby signifying that there was some-
thing in the nature of the subject which should not be re-
vealed—they were precluded from replying to many questions
that might be asked of them. It might be wrong to appoint a
Secret Committee, but as long as the House was of opinion
that it ought to be so, they could not go beyond what was
stated in the report, without violating their duty to the House
which appointed them. That report contained the answer to
all that had been said by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dun-
combe). It might be said that the report was evasive and un-
satisfactory, because it did not gratify the prurient curiosity of
individuals—(Cheers)—but it contained a full and fair ac-
count of the entire transaction. He believed he spoke
the opinions of the entire Committee, when he said that the in-
formation conveyed to them was full and complete, and as the
Right Hon. Gentleman ( Sir J. Graham) had stated, it was not
extracted by cross-examination, but was fully and freely laid
before them, and they had the opportunity of testing the asser-
tions made by reference to the documents themselves. No
doubt the public sympathy went in this case along with those
persons who took refuge in this country, upon whose soil the
slave became free the moment he touched it ; but it should be
recollected that they were engaged in transactions which might
have compromised the peace of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) He
would not give any opinion as to the propriety of the course
adopted. The Hon. Gentleman had exercised his powers of
ridicule on the last page of the report, and he did not mean to
say that it would bear the test of criticism. He admitted it

was a piece of Mosaic—a bit of white here and a bit of black

there ; but the Committee were of opinion that it was better to
state the arguments which might be used for and against the
power of issuing warrants for opening letters, than that they
should state any opinions or conclusions of their own.
He believed it was admitted that the issuing of the warrants
had taken place only in the exercise of a conscientious duty on
the part of the Government. He believed that, on the whole,
the Government had exercised a sound discretion in the course

they had pursued.
gir JAMES GRAHAM felt beund at the present moment
to make a few observations to the llouse, as he should be ex-
tremely sorry to have it supposed that lie intended to act dis-
courteously to those Hon. Members who had put questions to
him. The House would remember that in the last session he
had declined, respectfully hut firmly, to answer any questions
with respect to the warrants that had been issued. At that
time, however, he stated that if the House thought fit to
eetooanp-
point a tribunal to inquire into the matters he should a
bow to their decision and. make any statements to them

they might require.—(Hear, hear.) It was the pleasure
of the House to appoint that Committee —it was
formed of his political opponents, and yet he had
given every information to them that he could. There
was not one act of his for which he was respon3ible as a Minis-
ter of the Crown which he had not stated to the Committee.
—( Hear, hear.) Having done this, he could not, consistently
with his duty, answer any further interrogatories.—( Hear. )
He had given all the information in his power in M. Mazzini's
case, and the other one that had been referred to, and he could
not go further; and if any other warrant was brought before
the House, he should be prepared to deal with it ache had done
in M. Alazzini's case.
Mr. HUME thought they had no right to blame the Right
Hon. Baronet when he stated that he had given full informa-
tion before the Committee. What, then, were they to do?
Why, they should not question the Right Honourable
Baronet's accuracy till they knew what the Right Honourable
Baronet had stated. He wished to impress upon Hon. Mem-
bers last session that a Secret Committee would not satisfy
the public, and he thought that in that opinion he had been
borne out. The House appointed a Select Committee, and
that Committee was appointed at the suggestion of the Right
lion. Baronet. He had said on a former occasion that the
character of the country was at stake, and that the only course
to be pursued was to make the proceedings of the Committee
open.—( Hear, hear.) The report that had been produced
from the Committee was of such a character that
no person could form an opinion upon it. He be-
lieved that the proceedings that had taken place
would never have been sanctioned, if it had been supposed that
the Government would have pursued the course they had done.
He never could have believed, until the Right Hon. Baronet
admitted it, that he would have become the police-officer of
the King of Naples. After the statements that had been made
that Members of that House had had their letters opened, and
their affairs made public, was it to be supposed the public
would rest quiet, or that they would allow such things to con-
tinue ? It was true, the Right Hon. Baronet had sufficient in
numbers to stifle inquiry, hut, after what had been stated, it
was impossible Ministers coul I so far forego their characters as
to permit the system so continue.—( Hear. ) Why was the
Committee appointed ? Why, for the purpose of considering
whether it was fit that this power should exist in the Ministry
or not. The present was no political matter, but one in
which the whole country was interested. The duty of the
House was to see what they could do to prevent the evil in
future. He trusted the discussion would end for the present
by a declaration on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman that
the evidence should be printed, and then Members would be
enabled to come to a sound and satisfactory conclusion.
Sir J. HANMER had on a previous occasion given his vote
for inquiry. That inquiry took place, and it pleased the House
of Commons to make it secret; he thought now that it was
proved they were to blame in that, as the report that had been
produced was anything but satisfactory. What were the facts
that had been stated that night ? Why, an Hon. Member, the
representative of one of the Metropolitan districts,
had stated in his place in that House that his let-
ters had been opened and subject to inspection,—( Hear.)
But it did concern every free man in England that the House of
Commons should inquire into this charge—(Hear, hear)—it
was bound to see whether or not any letters of the Hon. Mem-
ber had been opened, and if so, whether they had been opened
csith sufficient reason—( Hear, hear)--for that would be no in-
considerable guide to them in that question which must in a short
time be brought under consideration—what is intended to be
done with this extraordinary power—a power, the existence of
which, he declared, though he hoped he was not unacquainted
ith the history of his country, and though he had paid some
attention to it, and though ho had been some time in Parlia-
ment, came upon him with as much surprise as it might on a
man at the Land's-end.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought
there were strong grounds for an inquiry ; he thought the
House ought to appoint a new committee or re-appoint the old
one—(Loud cries of " No, no")—in order to conduct that
inquiry; to that Committee he should give his
complete support—( Hear, hear)—and he should give that
support to a motion for it, without entering into 'any of the
imputations that had been made against the Right Hon.
Gentleman. He did not for a moment entertain them, for
as a man he respected the Right Hon. Baronet. He be-
lieved the Right Hon. Baronet was as honest as any man
who had held his high situation ; but he did 'demand that
this inquiry should be made when it was demanded by a Mem-
ber of that House itself.
Mr. Sergeant MURPHY said it-was not his intention to
approach the consideration of this question in anything like an
acrimonious or party spirit, and before entering on the ques-
tion, he might state that he had had the opportunity of pe-
rusing attentively the report that had been made on the sub-
ject, and the result that had formed itself in his
mind, and the conclusion he drew from the perusal
of that report was, that this was a privilege en-
joyed by the Government which was useless for the well-
being of that Government, and which ought to be abandoned
for the safety and honour of the country.—( Hear, hear.) That
was the conclusion at which he had arrived ; perhaps he had
formed a crude judgment on the point, but it was his intention
calmly and dispassionately to lay before the House the reasons
that had induced him to form that conclusion. Before he did
so, he might, in the first instance, address himself to an obser-
vation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. He
must say it struck him that one observation he had made was
not justly suited either to the dignity of that House or the dig-
nity of the subject. The Noble Lord used toward the Hon.
Member for Finsbury the language that any person who made
an inquiry into a matter so deeply involving his own personal
interest, must be actuated by a prurient curiosity. But the im-
pression upon that House was, that the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury did not demand that inquiry in his place in Parliament
on account of his own personal feelings, but as affecting a
matter involving the individual privileges and feelings of every
Member of the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He
would read an extract from the report, and he would then ask
the House if it was possible to conceive terms more stringent,
or language more forcible than that employed, to convey
to that House, and through that House to the
country, that it was the privilege of every representative of the
people to have an unreserved communication with his consti-
tuents. In page Bof the report, it was stated, that "in 1739,
the House resolved, inter alia, that it'is a high infringement of
the privileges of the knights, citizens, and burgesses, chosen
to represent the Commons of England in Parliament, for any
postmaster or his deputy to look into, or open, by any means
whatever, any letter directed to or signed by the proper hand
of any Member of the House, without an express warrant
under the hand of the Secretary of State for every such opening ;
nor shall such postmaster or hia deputy look into or delay, or
detain, any letter addressed to, or signed by the hand of any
Member, unless by an express warrant from the Secretary of
State for every such detaining or delay." Now, he would ask,
when any Member of Parliament, like the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, relying on this forcible resolution of the House,
came forward in his place and demanded an answer to his alle-
gations, he would repeat again, notwithstanding the reasons
given by the Right lion. Baronet for not answering that de-
mand, that the impression that would be made on the country
by that silence would be an unsatisfactory one. He stated
that, because he recollected that all the difficulties that,
hail been created on this subject might have been
avoided altogether, if the Right Hon. Baronet would have
pursued the same course in the case of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, as when the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath
brought before the House strong and impressive charges against
several individual Members of that House.—( Hear, hear. )
He recollected perfectly well at that time, that an objection
was made to placing the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath
on the Committee of Inquiry, but he was afterwards selected
as Chairman of it, and he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) would
challenge any person who was present at the investigation of
what was called the Compromise Committee, or any one who
sat on that Committee, to say whether the conduct of the Hon.
arid Learned Member for Bath, as its Chairman, did not raise
him still higher than before in the estimation of the House, on
account of the impartiality he had displayed.—( Hear, hear )
He brought his great natural sagacity, as well as his legal
acumen to the investigation, and lie asked if the Hon. Member
for Finsbury, whose privileges not merely as an individual,
but which were in some respects the property of the country,
had been violated, might not fairly and reasonably have been
added to the Committee ? It was because he was not added to
it, that the investigation had been so unsatisfactory.--
( Hear, hear.) 'l' e Right Honourable Baronet had
come forward to-night, and declared that he did not
feel called on by his sense of public duty to make any decla-
ration to the Hon. Member. But he at the same time de-
clared, on his honour as a gentleman, that he had made a free
and unreserved communication to the Committees of this
House and of the House of Lords ; and he (Mr. Sergeant
Murphy) was bound to and did believe that he had done so.
But when he said that, he was afterwards led to another ques-
tion, which arose from another statement that had fallen from
the Right Hon. Baronet. He told them that no communica-
tion of his had led in any degree to any intervention between
this country and foreign States, by which the latter were en-
abled to repress some attempts at invasion or insurrection.
But he asked the Right Hon. Baronet whether he would go to
the length of telling them that no other person connected with
her Alajesty's Government had not given such information ?
( Hear, hear.) He asked whether, even in the dim and
shadowy manner in which that information might have been
given, it was not sufficient to convey to those Governments
who, it was well known, had secret and very able diplomatic
agents in this country, an intimation of who were the parties,
just as clearly as if the names themselves had been given ?
( Hear, hear.) Did they not know that this country was
swarming with the diplomatic agents of foreign countries,
remarkable for the sagacity and skill with which they followed
up such investigations ? Was it not known that Russia em-
ployed a great number of persons of this kind, whose busi-
ness it was to furnish such information to their Governments,
and to denounce suspected persons? The Lion. Member fur
Finsbury, therefore, asked the question, and he ( Sergeant
Murphy) did not think it had been satisfactorily answered,
unless an equally distinct assurance could be given by the
Right Hon. Baronet, as that by which he had exonerated him-
self, that the Earl of Aberdeen, her Majesty's Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, stood equally absolved from making
any such communication. Now, before he went into any
other branch of the case, he might be allowed to state certain
matters he believed had a useful bearing on the question.
From the manner in which the report was drawn up, he
thought these warrants might be done away with altogether.
He might class the use of these warrants under three se-
parate heads ; the first was in matters purely criminal; the
second in matters seditious and political ; the third involving
us in relations with Foreign States. Now, with regard to
the first. One of the grounds on which it was possible to be
maintained, was that of antiquity, and the antiquity
of these warrants first depended upon a warrant
of Anne, based upon certain proclamations issued antecedent to
that period, but he was certain if they went higher up in search
of precedents for popular liberty, they would hardly adopt the
reigns of Charles, or James, or the Commonwealth, for those
precedents. In what way were the warrants used? With re-
gard to criminal matters, all his experience of criminal inves-
tigations all
elucidated proved that no letter was ever produced which at
elucidated any part of a criminal proceeding. He had never
known an instance of it, and he was contirrned
in the belief of
Baronet its inutility by the statement of the Right Hon.
him-
self, who told them to-night that, with regardtotheanddoniestic
exercise of this privilege, it was both unsatisfactory
thofat the
it
V
incon-
venient, and, he believed, he went tlie
thleonigitohasoof saaNyy•ianrge
might be dispensed with. a
Was not
which existed in the public
deep feelings against this
mind, when the Hon. Member privilege
for Finsbury thismotionbrontghrtooghouttle
,
forward last year? Did
matter ofnotwehvaetry
politics, denounce throughout
it ?--
( Hear, bear.) country, noDid not every society or club, which a
man went to obtain political information from, ring with
one universal outcry against the Government ?—(" No,' from
the Ministerial bench.) The Hon. Gentleman said " No, no,”
but he said ,6 Yes, yes."—( Tremendous cries. of " No, n 0.,,)
He did not mean to determine with what justice that opinion
was expressed, and he did not believe that the present Secre-
tary of State was more answerable, for the exercise of such a
privilege, than any who had preceded hint, but it was certain
that, as stated by the Hon. Baronet who spoke last (Sir J.
Hammon) that it came upon the country as a startling no-
velty. Wherever he went at that time all parties, irrespective
of creeds or politics, joined throughout the country in one uni-
versal feeling against it.—( Cries of " No, no.") lion.
Gentleman again said " No," but he appealed to those who
saw the statements with which the public press teemed at that
time. Was it useful for foreign purposes? Would it not have been
more useful to make a stringent Alien Act, which would give
the power of removing persons plotting against foreign States,
than for the Members of a Government to act as spies for
foreign States ? It was alleged on the prevent occasion that
no information had been given which could prove hurtful to in-
dividuals. He must say that he considered such information,
so far from being useful, would be highly injurious from its
vagueness, arid that it was likely to involve innocent persons