The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-01 00:00:00

RAILWAYS.

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

Mr. H AWES presented a petition, praying for a further ex-
tension of powers to the Hungerford Suspension Bridge
Company.
POST-OFFICE INQUIRY.

Mr. WAKLEV moved that the petition from certain
electors and other inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury, re-
lating to the Post-office inquiry, which had 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 paper, 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 lion. the Pro•
prietws of East India Stock, agreed to that day, against the
discriminating 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
opening of Mr. Duneombe'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 Hou.e 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 the actions
of foreigners resident in this country. lie stated, that if 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 freeitom 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 for the improvement of a country into a
colourable act of conspiracy and high treason. He, therefore,
prayed the House to interfere, and in some way modify the use
of the posers 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,
ha 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 'nisi'
MEMBERS.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that he had a question to ask
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, for the purpose of
asking which he had come expressly from 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, aas 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 s`mrt time since he saw with considerable sur-
prise a speech attributed to the Hon. Gentleman in the 'limes
newspaper.—(Order, order. )
The SPEAKER said that the lion. Member was irregular
in referring to a newspaper for what was said 'in that House in
a previous debate.
Mr. 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 following words, in alluding
to a large body of the Irish Members :—" They have run away
from their posts."—(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER—It is quite evident the Hon. Gentle-
man is referring to a speech made by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath during the present session, and it is quite
irregular for any Hen. Gentleman to allude to a previous de-
bate dui ing the same session.

Mr. RC/CUE—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 refer to any worth 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. DUN COMBE rose to move, " That certain officers be-
longing to her Majesty's Post-office do attend this House at
its next 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 Slingsbv Duncombe,
Esquire, a Member of this House." The Honourable
Member said he very much regretted that the little
progress which had been made in public business on
Tuesday evening last had prevented him from bringing for-
ward the motion of which he had given notice. In
again calling, as lie felt himself compelled to do, the
attention of the House to the very grave subject which bad
already occupied too 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 before the public. Now what
occurred on a former occasion He was told, in the first place,
that he bad no evidence at all of his letters having
been 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?
lie did the other evening, and he (lid new, altogether disclaim
any personal hostility to any individual on 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
equsl 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
most have been the person who issued it. If 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 Rig ht lion. Gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, knew any thing at all about the matter;
he did net 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
t:" ;Ilia
not believe that if he hail
it, he would hP.ve
permitted it. Whatever offence 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 presentedt
this House the petition of M. Mazzini, he certainly then knew
nothing at all of his letters having been opened. As far as ho
was concerned the House should now know all the
truth. When he presented M. Mazzini's petition he knew
nothing of the opening of his letters, he did not even
suspect that the Government would have 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 Pontefract, because that Hon. Gentleman said that
he (Mr. Duncombc) must have known wheel he 'presented
M. Mazzini's petition that his letters had been opened.
He knew nothing of the sort. On the t4th of June
se presented the petition of 111. Stolzman ; he knew
nothing even then, and did not suspect that his letters had
been stopped. On the 2d of July be 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. Dencombe'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 working of the inner or secret office of the
Post-office. lie therefore gave notice of a motion of that sort,
and said that if he could only get a Committee of Inquiry,
that ho would ascertain the names of parties, which were
notorious in the Post-office, and that he would have
the whole thing out. He gave notice of a
motion of inquiry into the working of this inner
office, and into the duties of the persons employed in 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. Mazzini 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 their letters were the property of 1
the Secretary of State or not. The Right lion. 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 point. How did he propose to satisfy them ?
Instead of adopting the proposal made by him (Mr. Dun-
combe), heMoved an amendment that a Secret Commit tee 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
had 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 toad him (Mr. Duucombe) 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. Duncombe) 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 jus'ification of the Government opening his letters? Be-
fore that time he had never }ward of Messrs. Lovett and
Collins. Then the Hon. and Learned Member for Bute had
stated that he (Mr. Duncombe) had been in correspon-
dence with certain persons who had threatened 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.) Wes there any proof that he (Mr. Duncombe)
was connected with tho,,e individuals? He had never heard
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 party was in 1841, just previous
to the general election, when he presented a petition for them,
praying for an amnesty to all political prisoners, and signed by
1,700,000 individuals. Those seilitical 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 ease of those
prisoners should be taken into consideration with a view to
their release. Well, what was the result? The House was
equally divided tipon 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 condition of the nation, 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 that 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 Hon. 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 ease. 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 Manchester 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 zany such were sent to
him at that time, the Right Honourable Baronet
must have kept them himself.—( Great laughter. )
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
examined, he believed there could be no doubt that it
had been " operated" upon.—( Laughter.) That 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 co much excitement—so much moral ex-
citement as is to be witnessed here.—( Laughter.) And but for
it the Tories would be 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 laughter.; 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 Hobhonse was the author of it. he should never
again venture to show his nose in Nottingham."—( Laughter. )
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 with Mr.
Feargus O'Connor; and, therefore, he should be glad
to know upon what grounds his letters were opened.
—( Hear.) If lie could prove that they had been opened
by the servants of the Post-office, let them shew
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. Ile did not now, nor did he
on the former occasion make this a question of privilege. That
wry a question which the House would decide when it heard the
evidence. They would then judge whether a breach of privi-
lege had been committed or not.—( Hear.) But it was his
firm conviction that if his letters, or the letters of any other
Member of the House, had been opened at the Post-office,
there could be no doubt that a breach of privilege had been
committed in his person. That was the actual state of the
question.—( Hear, hear. ) He was surprised that the Com-
mittee, which gave itself so much trouble to enter into matters
of deep and antiquarian research, had overlooked the case
which came under the cognisance of the House in 1689. He
was surprised they had not discovered that remarkable case, as
it bore pointedly upon that which he was now forcing their at-
tention, to.—( Hear, hear.) A complaint was made to the House
that the letters of a Member named Thompson were opened at
Hull by the order of a military Colonel. The allegations of
Thompson's petition were inquired into, and the House came
to the resolution, on the 14th of August, 1689, that the seizing.
detaining, and opening of the letters written by, or addressed to,
a Member of Parliament, was a breach of privilege and a
gross misdemeanor on the part of any officer, military or civil, in
the service of the Crown-4 Cheers.) In 1735 this House came
to a resolution almost unanimous, that it was a breach of the
privileges of Parliament to inspect or look into the letters of
any Member of the House of Commons, whether written by
him or addressed to him.—(Cheers.) Now, in the year 1622
a question of a similar kind was brought before the House by
his Hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland. lie did not
at the time agree with his lion. Friend, for he did not. think
that a breach of privilege had been committed. The case was
this, the Hon. Member for Cumberland directed a letter to a
prisoner in Manchester gaol, and that letter was opened by the
gaoler. His Hon. Friend brought the matter before the
House as a breach of privihge. But on looking over the de-
bates he (Mr. Duncombe) could not say that in that case any
breach of privilege had been committed, because it was quite
clear, according to the law, that letters addressed to a prisoner
in a gaol might be opened by a gaoler. An Act of Parliament
gave power to the visiting magistrates to make rules for the
regulation of the gaols, such rules to have the force of law
when approved of by the judges of assize. One of the orders
of the visiting magistrates of the gaol of Manchester was, that
no letter should be delivered to any prisoner without being read
by the gaoler.—( Hear, hear.) However, this was quite clear,
that in the debates on the case of his Hon. Friend the
Member fur Cumberland, the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman at the head of the Government, the Attor-
ney-General of the day, and all who spoke upon the
question—one and all—admitted that, if the violation of his
lion. Friend's correspondence had taken place in the Post-
office, it would have been a gross violation of the privileges of
the House.—(llear, hear.) He would not trouble the House
with long quotations from " liansard."—( A laugh.) He
would only ask them to consider what was his case. Ile was
ready to prove to the House that the authorities of the Post-
office had intercepted his correspondence at the command of
their superior officer.—(llcar, hear.) He proposed to bring
those persons to the bar of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He
would then bring their superior officers to the bar—(Cheers and
a laugh)—and he thought that no one could refuse to allow
him the right of bringing afterwards those who gave the orders.
—( Great cheering and laughter.) Now he would ask the House
of Commons, " Are you going to shrink from this investiga-
tion ?"—( Cheers. ) A Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had
said that the opening of letters was the usage of our ancestors.
—( Hear, hear.) Oh ! very well ; let them stand by the usage
of their ancestors—( Cries of " Hear, hear")---let them
do what the House of Commons did in 1689—let them
pronounce this scandalous outrage a gross violation of the pri-
vilege of the Commons of England.—( Loud cheering. )
He could not yet reconcile himself to the belief' that the House
of Commons would refuse him the opportunity of having this
case investigated. He would hear at the bar the parties who
would substantiate his case, and they would satisfy the House
that he had used no corrupt means to acquire his information.
Ile would prove to the House that he had not availed himself
of any secret betrayed by a discarded servant.—( Loud cheers. )
If a man picked his pocket, and another man came to him, and
said, " I will tell you who it was that picked your pocket ; I
knew him ;" he would turn such a man out of his house, be-
cause he would be betraying him.—( Hear, and laughter.)
But nothing of the sort had occurred in the present instance.—
( Cheers.) M. Mazzini had produced evidence which had
satisfied him that he had spoken truth. He stated that there
gewts
aet
tar
oeb
what
arntseveraletnhthen
whopersons
were
pecrofent,ntelyctreedadywtoithcorntehfeorriPaordst-aonffid
knew..-they were perfectly ready to tell the
ice

Government that they were disgusted with what had taken
place, anti that they felt themselves degraded by being com-
pelled by the Government to take the part in these proceed-
ings which they had been forced to take.—(Cheers.) He
well knew the great power of his opponents. He well knew
the odds against which he should have to contend. (Hear,
hear.) He well knew that he was standing in the face of a
tyrant majority—a majority which was ready at any time to do
the bidding of the Right Hon. Gentleman— (Loud cheers)—
an individual who was so persecuted that he could at any time
command 300 individuals who would come down to that House
and stultify themselves to support the Government.--( Loud
cheers.) They heard a great deal said about the independence
of the country gentlemen.—( Hear, hear.) They were for ever
boasting of their independence at their agricultural dinners in
their village pot-houses.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) While
at the same time their clubs in London were absolutely ringing
with the most unjust, unfounded, unmerited, personal abuse of
the Right Hon. Gentleman. They heard this unbounded
abuse one day, and yet they saw on the following day the same
individuals who uttered it receiving emolument and place from
the hands of the very man they had abused.—( Loud cheers.)
He, as an humble, but an independent Member of that House.
if they had anything like independence, called upon them as
gentlemen and as men of honour to support him. —( Cheers. )
It was his case to-day, it might be theirs te-morrow. He
called upon them, therefore, to support him. If they refused
to do him justice, let not the Hon. Secretary of Wets say, as
he said the other night, that he (Mr. Duricombe) was afraid
to have the subject elucidated, and that he shrank from stating
the sources from which he derived his information. He had
been guilty of no underhand conduct—he had had recourse to
no disreputable means for obtaining that information—(Loud
cheers.) The persons who possessed that information he pro-
posed to call to the bar of that House ; and they might be
examined as severely as they liked.—( Hear, hear.) He
shrunk not from investigation, and let all the odium, and
all the cowardice, or shrinking from investigation, fall
upon those who opposed it.—(lmmense cheering.)
He should have to move for the attendance of various persons
at the bar of the House, but he woald, in the first place. move
that Lieut.-Col. W. L. Maberley, the secretary to the General
Post-office do attend at the bar of the House, and bring with
him a certain book, called the " President's Order Book," and
a certain other book called the "Inspector's Order Book."
( The Hon. Gentleman then sat down amidst loud cheering,
during the continuance of which messengers from the Lords
brought down certain papers which were handed to the
Speaker.)
Mr. D'ISRAELI said that. the Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Finsbury. in la3ing before the House the statement he
had just made, had distinctly alleged that in making that
statement he had no intention of making a personal attack on
any individual. He should have hardly thought it was
necessary to make such a declaration, had it not been
for the situation in which he was placed, connected
with the motion which perhaps originated from a debate to
which he meant not to refer. If the case of the last general
warrant that was issued by a Secretary of State was compared
with the last Post-office warrant that was issued by the Secre-
ary of State, he thought they might discover from that com-
parison that no personal imputation need be applied to vindi-
cate a public right.—( Hear, hear.) There was not
the slightest doubt that the last general warrant is-
sued by a Secretary of State was an act of tyranny—
an act of oppression and an iniquitous act., but no person
would pretend that the Secretary of State who issued it was a
tyrant, an oppressor, or an essentially unjust man. On the
contrary, he thought Lord Halifax was a good-natured and
a well-meaning man. Custom freed the Minister from any
moral imputation; but when a point was called into public dis-
cussion, he would not admit that custom said habit, though it
freed the Minister from moral imputati in, freed him also in a
legal point of view.—( Hear, hear. ) What were the circum-
stances under which the Hon. Gentleman brought the case be-
fore the House? It wets a question which now not, only en-
gages! the attention of the House, hut interested also those of
the nation—( Hear, hear)—and he gave the lion. Gentleman
who brought it forward credit for the same purity of feeling
as the Minister immediately alluded to; and he was surprises!
that any Minister of the Crown should have ever risen in that
House, and say that such a question was prompted by personal
motives.—( Hear, hear.) It was only in answer to such an im
putation that he, for himself, expressed his feelings that no
personality in that respect influenced him in making a declara-
tion that applied not to the House merely, hut to a particular
individual. Whatever might be the ebullition of feeling in
other quarters, he was of opinion that the individual to
whom he addressed himself had done him justice.
The Honourable Gentleman had placed the question
neatly and completely before the House.—(llear, hear.)
All he said was—" If my letters have been opened, the officers
of the Post-office have committed a breach of privilege, unless
indeed they have done so under the warrant of the Secretary of
State. If they have done that, produce the warrant and I will
appeal to the courts of justice to decide whether that war-
rant is a legal instrument er not." He was at a loss to under-
stand what answer could be given to that direct appeal. Now
that was the view which was naturally taken by the Hen.
Gentleman in his individual case. Ile believed that the
country wished that the warrant should he introduced, not
merely to vindicate the honour of the Hon. Gentleman, or the
reverse, but that an opportunity might be afforded to the sub-
jects of the Queen to try whether that instrument was a legal
one. The situation of the Hon. Gentleman might be the
situation of any Member of that House, or of any subject of
the Queen to-morrow; and the question which he
asked was, whether, when he had been subjected to a wrong,
he should not be allowed a remedy? He knew that some Hon.
Gentlemen might say that this was a power which should
always be at the disposal of the Government; others might
say that it was a disgrace to this country for foreign nations to
know that they exercised it and others again might u-ge that
this could scarcely be the case, when every foreign nation
itself exercised the power. There was this distinction always
to be remembered, though foreign nations might have exer-
cised this power, foreign nations had never believed that Eng-
land exercised it. The question, as one of policy, was a very
simple one. The question was, were they to be ruled by a
popular Government, or did they wish to be ruled by a Go-
vernment of police?—( Hear, hear.) No doubt a popular Go-
vernment might have many inconveniences. No doubt it
would he much better, for instance, that the question'of the
sugar duties should be settled without any loss of time ;
and it was a great inconvenience, as the Right lion.
Gentleman had often told them, that the discus•
sien of the subject took up so much of their
time. For his own part, he did not doubt that the question
might be settled by the Right Hon. Gentleman himself in his
tie
3;
they Government.
migh t
h B
have
e not
Bristol
psrtyoiln burnt,
intornt,
they
Cabinet as well as, and perhaps better, than through their in-
terference.—(Laughter.) But that was one of the inconve-
niences
cor-
respondence of individuals, they might subject themselves to
verygreaotf popularealam
hail had it burnt; they might have Birmingham assailed, as they
had had it assailed.—( Hear, hear.) But the country struck
the balance.—( Hear, hear.) It agreed to suffer certain incon•
veniences for the sake of a popular Government ; and the
country, after all, must decide this question. Now, he be-
lieved that that was an impartial view as regarded the general
question. He had said at first, what he felt now, that those
who, by a perversion of feeling which he could not compre-
hend, had thought it expedient to turn this question into an
assault upon the Government or any particular Minister, were
not in any way justified by the facts of the case.—( Hear. )
theseth
at
With regard to the country, though it sympathised with the
Member for Finsbury on this question, yet it considered it
Stat of
e were legal warrants or
Thede deciding public
whether wished
of an importance still further than as it affected the Hon.
Gentleman's individual interest.
there
warrantso
shouldf thebe an
Secretaryopportunity
o f
not. They wished the question to be decided as the question
of general warrants was decided, and if it could be shown
that these warrants were legal, then it became a question
open to the discussion of that House, whether the power of
issuing them was such a power as, in a free country ought to
exist.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman who had introduced
this subject seemed, by some observations which he (Mr.
D'lsraeli) almost regretted that he had made, to think that
an impartial decision of this question in that House was im-
possible. Certainly, when he recollected the last debate, to
which he would not now refer, he was not surprised, after
all the misconceptions and elaborate misrepresentations that
had been mado—he was not surprised that the Hen. Member
should think the decision would not be a -fair one.
He (Mr. Disraeli) could not believe, though the
Honourable Member seemed to suppose it, :that any
intimidation was purposely or aforethought enacted in that
House. But there was not the slightest doubt that both on
this question before them, anti on others that had been before
them within the last two or three years, there hail been misun-
derstandings that could only have been the result of misconcep-
tions—perhaps mutual misconceptions—as to the relationship
between the leaders of a party in that House, and the sup-
porters of that party. He alluded to these circumstances, be-
cause the Honourable Gentleman seemed to think that, on this
occasion, a free and impartial consideration of the question
was not to be secured, and because, unless there was a correct
understanding on this head, he almost despaired of the Hon.
Gentleman's receiving that fair decision. When, after the
last election, the common and baneful differences of party had
been destroyed, and when every one knew that the constituent
elements of party in that House were changed, the old state of
parties ceased, and the old notions of party almost evaporated.
Under those circumstances, in a popular assembly of more than
six hundred persons, it was inevitable that there must arise dis-
cussions, in which, though Gentlemen sat on different sides of the
House, vet on questions in which the elementary principles of
their political opinions were concerned, they would divide in
the same lobby, and take the same side. This had often hap-
pened ; the lion. Gentleman opposite proposed a motion
which did not seem to affect the principles of either party, and
some Gentlemen on this side of the House supported it. Cir-
cumstances occurred which showed that a division which might,
if not embarrassing, still be unpleasant to the Government,
and then a system commenced which seemed to justify the lion.
Gentleman in thinking that he could not get a fair decision.
It appeared to him that statesmen adopted two principles—
that of praise, and innuendo and imputation—the insinuations
of base motives and the allegations of fractious conduct. It
generally, continued the Hon. Gentleman, develops itself in
foreign matters. There is a little irritability on the Treasury
bench.—(Laughter.) That is almost immediately followed
by some impatience among the immediate friends of the Go-
vernment; and then, if it is observed that some gentlemen
get up, there is an imputation of mean and of personal mo-
tives—l might say corrupt :motives—against every gentleman
who is perhaps speaking or about to vote on the propositions,
although the question may not involve any party
principle or any political principle, but is devoted
merely to a matter of practice. Now in this
state of affairs, probably at the end of two or three
nights' debate, when the course which has been taken has natu-
rally produced an acerbity in many quarters, and perhaps the
expression of a bitternes the sincerity of which cannot be
doubted.—(Loud laughter)—at the right moment the Right
lion. Baronet rises to cap the climax, and probably having
been just assured by one of his aide-de-camps that he is likely to
have a larger majority than ever, he makes a passionate appeal
to his supporters, as if the strong Government were in the
throes of dissolution—( Loud laughter)—and those Gentlemen
who rise on this side the House after that are charged with a
desire to embarrass the Government by distinct political collu-
sion, or of Parliamentary intrigue. Now, I protest against
this. The system is not founded on justice or fair play. It is
not founded on the real understanding on which principles
exist. It is, in fact, though unintentional, tyranny—(Cheers)
—and is, to my mind, as degrading to those who exercise as
those who endure it.—(Loud cheers.) No, I take a recent
case, because it is fresh in my memory—l mean
when the Honourable Gentleman, the other night,
called our attention to this particular instance of grievance.
lie brought forward a motion which at the first blush every one
might see would be opposed by the Government in existence,
and by the Government who preceded them. That at once
takes from it the appearance of a party question. There
dealsblea
general impression in this House, that it is extremely
that the decisions of Committees should always be respected,
and never disturbed. I believe that impression is not peculiar
to either side of the House. The Hon. Member for Hull, from
whose character it would certainly be impossible to say that he
was capable of anything like political collusion, forming his
opinion from the statement of the Hon. Member for Finsbury
himself, said he was inclined to support the opinion of the Com-
mittee, but it was impossible that the individual instance of the
lion. Member for Finsbury could be passed over. It so hap-
pened that certain circumstances were brought forward, as will
always happen in a popular assembly of this kind—circum-
stances which might indicate that a division was about to take
place, not embarrassing, but probably more disagreeable than
the Government ever anticipated, if they had condescended
even to think of the division in the first instance. Well,
then, immediately the svtsem, and all the powers of the system,
are put into action.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Right Houe

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 1, 1845.

Gentleman even brought forward the sanction of his great
example—•a division was called for, gentlemen were sent for
from the country to support the Government in danger, that
never was in peril—(Laughter)—for there needs must be a
great party triumph when not a single party principle was at
stake, or a single party principle in danger.—(Cheers and
laughter. ) Now, I really think that more liberal constructions
might come from the Treasury Bench at this moment. I
think the Right Hon. Baronet is the last Minister that ought
to be a political martinet. I conceive that he is cot a Minister
in a position reqeiring the devotion of his party. I can sup-
pose a Minister with a very small majority, holding office
merely in deference to his party. He would have a right to
say. when a party fight or difficulty came, " I expect your de-
votion—you must be ready under all circumstances to
support me.—( Hear, hear. ) That is not the position
of the Right Honourable Gentleman. It is quite
the reverse. He has got a very large party
to support him, and although the Opposition before him it dis•
tinguished, doubtless, for eminent talent, and which numeri•
cally is not very contemptible, yet it is not in the poOion of
being celebrated for the power of cohesion.—( Laughter.)
The Right Hon. Baronet, therefore, is in a position which
really should allow him to be indulgent.—( Laughter.) It is
very easy for him to turn round and say " I am quite fresh
for the attack, I am prepared to meet the foe—no one ever
saw me quail."—( Laughter.) But the Right lion. Gentle-
man forgets that the foe before him does not wish to tight
him.—( Great laughter.) The Right lion. Gentleman for-
gets that the victory is very easy when there is nobody to
oppose him. Another reason why I think the Right
Honourable Gentleman should not adopt that tone, is this :
the Right Hon. Gentleman should not forget that, after all, a
great many of his supporters were elected under different cir-
eumstances.—( The remainder of the sentence was lost in the
immense cheering which followed. ) 1 think a little philoso-
phical consideration would show him, as a great statesman, un-
der these circumstances, that what I have stated is the least we
could expect from him. I admit that for one, was sent here
by my constituents to sit on this side, and the Bight Hon.
Gentleman may object to me, though not on great occasions, if
I have been sometimes in a different lobby to himself. But I was
sent here by my constituents to swell a Tory majority, end to
support a Tory Ministry. Whether a Tory Mirtistry exist or
not, is a question I will not enter into—(Laughter)—but 1 am
bound to believe that a Tory majority still remains, and there-
fore, if any cross over to the other side of the House, I do not
think it will be the majority. Now, 1 hope the Right Hon.
Gentleman will, therefore, on refection, take a more con-
descending and charitable view of our motives than he has
hitherto been pleased to do. I am sure that, for myself, I can
say I never for a moment misinterpreted the conduct of the
Right Hon. Baronet. I know that some would think that he
is shunning his own party and looking to new allies.--( Laugh-
ter. ) I never for a moment believed anything of the kind.
The position of the Right Hon. Baronet is so clear and pre-
cise, that I cannot for a moment suppose he would ever leave
it. I never believed that he was looking to a coalition, though
some of my constituents do. The Hon. Gentleman knows
that it is best to remain where he is. The Bight Hon. Ba-
ronet caught the Whigs bathing, and walked away with their
clothes.—( This felicitous expression was caught up by the
House at once, and roars on roars of ktughter followed.) He
has left them in the lull enjoyment of their liberal position,
and he is strictly conservative of their garments.—( Great
laughter.) I cannot conceive why the Right lion. Baronet
should desert his party, they seem to me never to desert him.
Never was there a case yet when he hail less need to find new
friends. I therefore hope that Ire will he on reflection more
indulgent. I look upon the Right Hon. Baronet as having
obtained the shrew of liberalism—die is the political Petruchio
—he has outbid you all.—( Great laughter.) Ah, Sir, if we
could only induce the Right Honourable Baronet to take
a larger and more liberal view of his Parliamentary
position than he seems in moments too testy for
so great a man to indulge in, we might be spared,
Sir, some of the imputations which, from a man
like him, are really painful. The Right Hon. Baronet may
find it sometimes convenient to reprove the party on his right
flank. Perhaps we deserve it. I for one am prepared to bow
to the rod, but really if the Right Hon. Baronet, instead of
having recourse to himself, would only stick to quotation, he
might rely on it that he would have a more severe weapon.
When he does appeal to authority, in prose or verse, I see he
is more successful, partly because 1 observe the Right Hon.
Baronet never refers to any passage which has not previously
received the nicer! of Parliamentary approbation—( Lour'
laughter)— and, partly and principally, because his quotations
are so happy. The Right Hon. Gentleman, when he intro-
duces a great name into the debate, knows how important is
the effect, and occasionally how electrifying. He never refers to
any author who is not great, and sometimes who is not learned.
Mr. Canning, for example. that•name never to be mentioned
in the House of Commons without emotion. We all admire
his genius—we all, at least most of us, must deplore his un-
timely end, and we all sympathise in his fierce struggle with
supreme dulness and sublime mediocrity, with the inveterate
foe and the candid friend.—( Great cheering.) The Right
Hon. Baronet must be aware that quotations from such an
authority must always tell,—a passage would be sublime, for
example, on friendship written by Canning, and quoted by the
Right Hon. Gentleman.—(Great cheering.) The poem and
the speaker would be a felicitous combination, its effect in de-
bate would be overwhelming ; and, I am sure, that all that
would be remaining, would be for me thus publicly to con-
gratulate the Right Hon. Baronet, not only on his ready
memory, but on his courageous conscience. (The Hon. Gentle-
man sat down amidst load and enthusiastic cheers. )
Sir JAMES GRAHAM who was so indistinct as to be
scarcely heard in the Gallery said, he rose to give the House
the reasons why he intended to oppose the motion of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury. If there had been tyranny, as had
been stated by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,
there wts now open and avowed rebellion to it, and not as
hitherto covert mutiny. After what had been stated by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury. he (Sir James Graham) would
not treat the motion before the House as a question of privi-
lege. He thought that a'l the circumstances con-
nected with this question antecedent to the 4th
of July, might with propriety be discarded. It was
of the utmost importance that he should recal to the
attention of the House what had occurred on the day when the
Select Committee had been granted. The Noble Lord the
Member for London had, on that day, distinctly stated that,
while he had filled the office of Secretary of State, he had fol-
lowed the example of Sir R. Walpole, and had, in pursuance of
his official duty, issued warrants upon his special responsibility.
The Noble Lord had stated that he had come down to the
House prepared to oppose the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.
He said that if the Secretary of State were prepared to say,
as Sir Robert Walpole had said, that he had exercised that
right, not from motives of personal curiosity—not from vindic-
tive feelings—not from motives of self-interest—but solely be-
cause he considered that the exercise of it was necessary for the
public good, he (Lord .1. Russell) should be prepared to oppose
the motion. He (Sir J. Graham) at that time proposed an
amendment to the House; he stated, on the whole, he con-
sidered that a Secret Committee would be preferable to a Select
Committee. 'll-le:Noble Lord distinctly stated that he considered
also that a Secret would be preferable to a Select Committee.
It was best to be exact on such a point, and he would therefore
quote the very words used by the Noble Lord, which were as
follows r—" I entirely agree with the reasonings urg-d by
the Right Hon. Gentleman (meaning himself, Sir J. Graham),
for preferring a Secret Committee to a Select Committee. I
think that the proposed inquiry will be gone into more fully,
and that the investigation will be more strict, and that the
Committee will be enabled to arrive at more correct conclu-
sions."—(Cheers.) He would now call the attention of the
House to the proceedings which had taken place on this sub-
ject. In the month of June, a fortnight before this decision
had been come to, the Hon. Gentleman had brought forward
the question, and a division had taken place, in which the Go-
vernment had been run very close—he believed that the Go-
vernment majority amounted only to 26. When the Select
Committee was appointed, five gentlemen had been appointed
on it, who on that occasion had voted against her Ma-
jesty's Ministers. Only three members of that Com-
mittee had voted with her Majesty's Ministers and
one had not voted at all. —( Hear, hear. ) The Noble
Lord the Member for London had distinctly stated that, in
his opinion, that Committee had been fairly constituted—that
he preferred a Secret Committee to any other tribunal—and
that it appeared that the composition of that Committee was
satisfactory. That Committee, so constituted, had investigated
the subject, and had arrived at a conclusion which appeared to
be satisfactory to the House of Commons. It was of great im-
portance that the House should bear in mind what had been
the allegations of the Hon. Member for Finsbury before the
constitution of that Committee. He had, in the first place,
stated that there existed an inner office in the post-office, in
which letters were opened wholesale—that the Brighton bag
was called for—that the Dublin bag was called for—and he
stated it was his belief that everybody's letters were opened—
that even his own letters were opened. He said that the
Brighton bag and the Dublin bag were called for, and that the
Albany letters were sent for—that the opening of letters went
on wholesale—that, in fact, there was a roving com-
mission for opening letters wandering about the coun-
try. The Honourable Member for Finsbury distinctly
stated on that occasion that he had no doubt but that his own
letters had been opened. Such was the state of the case when
the Secret Committee had been appointed. But that was not
all. On the 16th of July the Hon. Gentleman had made a
fresh appeal to the House. He was asked to repeat the charges
he made to the House on that occasion. The Hon. Gentle-
man said he would prefer a Bill of indictment, and he again
enumerated the charges he would prefer. He did not think it
necessary to repeat those charges, but he said he would be ready
to prove that the letters of foreign ministers had been opened,
and that for two years the most unscrupulous use was made of
the power of opening letters. He mentioned that the letters
of many individuals were opened, and he said he believed then,
and believed now, that his own letters were opened. Now, on
the 22d of July, the lion. Gentleman stated in substance all
the allegations he made on the 16th of July. He stated that
he would prove those allegations before the Committee, and
that the proof which he tendered broke down only in
consequence of a condition which the Honourable
Gentleman sought to impose on the Committee. The Ho-
nourable Member appealed, on the 16th of July, from the
judgment of the Secret Committee to that House, and moved
that it should be an instruction to that Committee that they
should hear the evidence he had to lay before it. The Noble
Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, said they were anxious
to have his evidence, and that other evidence, the most ample,
had been placed at their disposal, and that they had proceeded
with their inquiry without any reference to party or personal
considerations. lint the circumstances and conditions under
which the lion. Member for Finsbury required to appear before
the Committee, obliged them to refuse his request; and there-
fore they were either wrong in thus refusing him, or this
House was wrong in refusing his motion as to the instruction
to be given to the Committee. That motion was negatived by a
large majority of the House, and in that majority appeared the
Hon. Member for Portsmouth, and the Noble Lord the Member
for Sunderland. Now he (Sir J. Graham) would contend for it
that the Secret Committee was the best and safest tribunal before
which such a question could be investigated, and he believed
there could be no doubt of the fact that that Committee had
ioferat
hFr hear,"
motionn'
sfsrebwocumarresytt,
ph.
Committee,uneto:
at
si s Ministerialfifeu dallyswbeei
discussed,
sec
chttuechsseso.
em)rdem:
oißutatrttte, thedeo of
again
tgihHanei
un .
the
hy..le
carefully and deliberately made that examination.—( Hear,
m b
Committee,Member
Hon.Tha t
appealed again to this House, and asked it to appoint, in lieu
o
Member was defeated; but, not satisfied with that, the House
now found him for the third time appealing to it, and calling
upon it to do that which would be exactly the converse of its
two former d • ec,stons. He ( Sir J. Cleaham) would not weary
the House by rending passages from the report of the Secret
Committee ; but, it did appear by that report that all the alle-
gations contained in the Hon. Member's original charge had
been investigated. The existence of the "inner office" at the
General Post-office had been inquired into, as well
as the acts done there, and also the charges
about the Brighton bags and the Dublin bags,
and all the other items in the catalogue of the Hon. Member's
charges, had been minutely inquired into. They further in-
quired into the power that had been exercised under those
warrants, with a view to ascertain whether that power had been
made subservient to private curiosity ; and the deliberate de-
cisiou of the Committee, solemnly come to, was, though they
were not enanimous on the point, that each warrant had been
issued wills discretion ; that in no case had any warrant been
issued from private or personal motives.—( Hear, hear.) In
the course of the observations made by the Hon. Member, he
had made use of some strong language and equally strong as-
sertions ; and he (Sir James Graham), if he felt inclined to do
so, would be entitled to use language just as strong ; but, with-
out appealing to such assistance, he would declare deliberately
and solemnly that he never opened, or directed to be opened,
without a written authority from the Home office, in confor-
mity with the long-continued practice of his predecessors, any

letter from personal or vindictive feelings.— (Hear, hear.)
He would go:further, and state in the presence of many Gen-
tlemen who had private knowledge of the fact, that there was
a record kept in the Home-office, and another in the General
Post-office, of every warrant issued by hint ; end that every
%variant that bad been issued by bins had been produced by him
before the Secret Committee.—( Hear, hear.) And not only
that, but he went seriatim through all the facts and circum-
stances connected with each ; and without the least reservation
or disguise, stated to that Committee all his reasons for having
issued each warrant.---( Hear, hear.) If the House should en-
tertain any question as to his veracity en this point, then he
could appeal to the officers in the Home-office and the General
Post-office to bear him out. The Committee had had all those
officers before them, and no doubt they checked his evidence
by the ire. With regard to what had been said about the report
of the Committee of the House of Lords, he begged to remind
the Home that it was quite enough for him to confine himself
to the (barges of the Hon. Member for Finsbury, and the Com-
mittee of this House. Notwithstanding that strong language had
been used by him and other Honourable Members towards
him in the course of this debate, he was willing to admit there
was some excuse for it, seeing that this was a question which
deeply affected the public, and which rendered an inquiry
necessary ; but that inquiry had taken taken place, the fullest
investigation had been made, and he had endeavoured to show
that every act of his in reference to the question had also been
investigated by the Committee, and that Committee had given
a verdict in his :favour.—( Hear, hear; from the Ministerial
benches.) He felt that the time of the House was precious, and
that he would not, therefore, be warranted in trespassing upon
it at too great length ; but perhaps he might be pardoned for
saying a word or two in reference to the manner in which his
private feelings had been wounded by lion. Gentlemen oppo-
site.— (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Finsbury had
made allusion to the early intimacy that had existed between
them. No doubt he was at one time upon terms of great and
close intimacy with the lien. Member, an intimacy of no re-
cent date, but one that had been transmitted to them
by their forefathers from an early period, and there-
fore it was with feelings of the greatest pain that he
found himself compelled to come into collision with
one in whose society be had passed many joyous and happy
days, and many pleasant and convivial evenings—(Hear, hear,
and laughter)—and he was happy to say that that intimacy
was not the result of unison of political feeling.—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Member had stated that it was from no personal feel-
ings that he had brought on this question, but in the discharge
of his public duty; and that it was because of his political
opinions he had become the advocate, in that House, of those
who demanded the fulfilment of the provisions of the Charter.
It would ill become him (Sir James Graham) to comment
upon the Hon. Member's line of public conduct ; it was before
the public, and would be judged by the public ; but he was
bound to say of the Hen. Member, that no circumstance had
ever come to his knowledge, in the discharge of his public duty,
that was inconsistent with the Hon. Member, either ari a loyal
subject of the Queen, or with the dignity of a Member of that
House.—(Loud cheers from all parts of the House.) But the
Hon. Member for Liskeard had said that he (Sir J. Graham)
was bound, in the discharge of his public duty, without acting
injudiciously, to give a plain answer to a civil question.
Mr. BULLER.—I said " a civil answer to a plain ques-
tion."—(Laughter.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—WeII, a" civil" answer.—(Laughter. )
Now, he would say, that while he held the public office he did,
he felt bound not only to answer to the best of his ability ques-
tions put to him, not only by Hon. Members of that House,
but by the humblest member of the community ; but at the
same time he should say, he conceived it to be incompatible
with the free discharge of his duty, to answer questions of a
particular nature.—(Hear.) In conclusion, he begged to as-
sure the Hen. Member that in nothing he (Sir J. Graham)
had said or done in this matter, did he mean him the least
personal disrespect.—( Hear, hear.) On the contrary, he could
say with sincerity that his feelings towards him were of a de-
scription that nothing he could say should ever shake.—
(Cheers)—and he would now sit down, again repeating that
he knew nothing of him that reflected on his character, either
as a loyal subject:of the Queen, or the dignity of a Member
of that House.—(Cheers.)
Lord HOWICK said he could wish that this subject had
not been brought before the House again, but that
from what had already transpired, her Majesty's Go-
vernment would have deemed it sufficient to
have framed some Bill that would have guarded against those
abuses in future.—( Hear, hear.) But as his Learned
Friend had brought it on again before the House, he ( Lord
Howick) would say the House were bound to consider the sub-
ject again, and renew the inquiry if necessary. The Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had
not, in the whole course of Isis explanation, said one word in
denial of his Hon. Friend's statement. The Right lion.
Baronet did not deny that it was in accordance with prece-
dent, that, when letters were opened, an inquiry was granted,
with a view to ascertain that such a step had been taken by
competent authority. The Hon. Member for Finsbury bad
stated that he could prove that his letters had been opened—.
that nothing in the course of this debate had been stated as a
sufficient authority or reason for doing so, and therefore he
was justified in pressing for an investigation. But the Right
lion. Gentleman had resisted the demand of the lion. Member
for Finsbury, by the assumption that the question had already
been tried and disposed of by the Secret Committee. Now,
what had the Committee done ? They had reported
that M. Alaszini's letters had been opened, and
stated the grounds for doing so, and that they did not con-
sider the Right Hon. Baronet blameable ; but, with regard to
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, the Committee had not only
giVen no judgment upon it at all, but they left it a matter of in-
ference or doubt as to whether his Hon. Friend's letters had
been opened at all or not, or any warrant issued for the per-
pose.—( Hear, hear.) If the Committee had reported that a
warrant had been issued far opening his Hon. Friend's letters,
then the Hon. Baronet would have been justified in acting on
that; but the Committee had done no such thing, nor had they
stated whether any such warrant had been issued at all or not.
Nay, more, the Committee did not even agree, they were not
unanimous as to the fact that there had been a discreet exer-
cise of j udgment in the warrants that had been issued.—( Hear. )
It might be that a Minister might do a wrong act from a right
motive ; but he (Lord Howick) would say that, let a Minister
holding so high an office as that of Secretary for the Home De-
partment make a mistake from motives, no matter how good,
it was right that it should be investigated.—(Hear, hear.)
His Hon. Friends the Member for Liverpool, the Member for
Derby, ar.sl the Member for Kendal, had expressed their opi-
nions that the Court of Inquiry had not had the good fortune
of agreeing among themselves. Coupled with this fact, there
was another remarkable circumstance. it was this—throughout
the whole of its details there was not the slightest notice of the
opening of thy letters of his lion. Friend the Member for
Finsbury in the report. Taking these things together, the
doubt still remained whether his Hon. Friend's letters had been
opened or not. They could not agree then, whether his Hon.
Friend's letters ought to have been opened or not. He need
not recapitulate his opinion of what the facts had been, but
there were the strongest circumstances to justify the opinion
that they had been opened. It appeared to him that it was
evident that they were divided in their opinion, and he did not
believe, therefore, that he was precluded from this inquiry.
He felt that it was an extraordinary power to put into
into the hands of a Secret Committee—( Hear, hear)—
and just in proportion to the extent of those powers
he conceived it was necessary that the country and the House
should be satisfied that they had been rightly used. This was
a requirement which in all honour and justice they were bound
to satisfy. He had always understood that the functions of a
Committee were to consider the evidence laid before them,
and that, having so considered it, they were to come to a deci-
sion, and then lay that decision before the House. The Com-
mittee were not the judges—they were only the purveyors of
justice ; and it was the House whose business it was to decide,
when the Committee had submitted their decision to its judg-
ment, whether they had rightly decided or not. The House
was not bound by the decision of the Committee, for the House
often overruled them, and not the House only, but the Go-
vernment also. During last session he had had the honour of
being in the chair of a Committee which had to invcsti-
gate the rights of private parties, and he had found
that the decision at which they arrived was materially
affected by the subsequent conduct, not of the House,
but of the Government. The Committee to which he
alluded was the Committee en the affairs of the New Zealand
Company. There was a disagreement in the Committee, but
of course the decision to which they came was the decision of
the majority. But what was the case? After the House had
risen, the result of the agreement. of that majority had been en-
tirely frustrated. The Right lion. Baronet had stated that his
opinion did not coincide with that of the majority ; that it was
evident that there had been considerable difference in the Com-
mittee, and that, in his opinion, the minority were right, and
he had acted upon that opinion. Such was the result of the
review of a decision of a Committee. But in the case of a
Secret Committee the business became much more involved
and difficult ; and in the case before them it was peculiarly so.
There was just reason to suppose that in the Committee which
sat to investigate the proceedings of the Post-office, there was
a very considerable difference of opinion. Indeed, it was very
likely that, at the conclusion of the discussion, they had not
came to any decision at all. They had been invested with
powers of the very highest order. They had been engaged
in an investigation which involved the privileges of the House
itself. Yet notwithstanding all this, and in a matter which
of all things the House ought to be made acquainted with, the
Government refused to tell the House what were the arguments
on which they acted, and he believed there was reason to think
that the Committee had come to no decision whatever. The
Government had asserted that the Committee had given a ver-
dict in their favour, and they left the House and the country
to come to the conclusion, that the grounds of their acquittal
were sufficient. But this, in his (Lord Howick's) opinion,
was a very unsatisfactory mode of coming at a conclusion. A
difficulty had consequently been created, which nothing but
further investigation could remove ; but that, as his Hon.
Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) had said,
would remove the whole difficulty. Why, then, refuse what
it was so easy to grant? The matter was now becoming abso-
lutely ridiculous.—( Hear.) Why did the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet refuse to say under what circumstances it was that he
had issued his warrant? Would it not be better to say at
once that he had issued the warrants? That he had issued
them under such and such circumstances; that he had acted
to the best of his judgment ; that he might possibly be wrong,
but that he intended to do right, and that having thus dis-
charged his duty, the House might then do as they think
proper. The Right Hon. Baronet said, that if he answered
this question he would be placing himself in a situation which
would oblige him to answer all the questions that might be put
to him. That might apparently be a sufficient reply for the
Right Hon. Baronet, but for his (Lord Howick's) part he
must say that it weighed very little with him. Such a course
was, indeed, practically making it impossible to ascertain whe-
ther any injustice at any time had ever been committed. If
the Right Hon. Baronet kept these facts from the House,
how could it be possible for them to ascertain whether there
had been any improper abuse of the power which had
been confided to him? Under all the circumstances, he
thought that his Honourable Friend had a clear right to
press for an elucidation. If that elucidation were obtained the
House would be in a proper position to limit this power in
future. If the Right Hon. Baronet persisted to refuse any ex-
planation of the reasons on which he had acted, he (Lord
Howick) could not conceive that the refusal was tantamount
to anything but an: acknowledgment that the letters of his
Hon. Friend had been opened, and he consequently could take
no other course than to go out with his Hon. Friends on this
vote.—(Cheers and loud cries of " Divide, divide," from every
part of the House.)
Lord SANDON rose amid much confusion, and, after much
interruption said that he wished but to say one word as to the
conduct of the Committee of which he had been Chairman.
This was necessary from the remarks of the Noble Lord oppo-
site. He th night that the Committee did not consider them-
selves invested with a discretion to investigate the right of the
existence of the power of opening letters or not. They did not
conceive that they had any right to investigate the difference
between political warrants and criminal warrants, but they con-
ceived that they were called upon to express their opinion as to
whether the power itself had been properly or improperly used—
whether the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the
Home Department had or had not misused the powers with
which he was invested. They went into the investigation, and
satisfied themselves that for the last twenty-four years every
Government had exercised these powers, and the decision to
which they had come had, in his opinion, pointed out the only
way to escape from the difficulty—(Loud cries for division.)
Mr. WARBURTON said that he did not altogether differ
from the Noble Lord, but there was one point on which he
did differ from him. The course pursued by the Committee
was that which they conceived would answer the require-
ments of the constitution and the country. There was no
point raised as to the intention of the Right Hon. Baronet,
there had been no question put to the witnesses to elucidate

that point. The only point raised was on the question whe-
ther the Right Hon. Baronet had the power or not to even
letters.
Lord SANDON sail that he must differ from the Hoer.
Gentleman opposite, for he conceived that the Committee did
nut try the issoe en the intention of parties, but whether their
power had been rightly exercised.
Mr. 'WARBURTON again objected to the observation of
the Noble Lord, for he conceived that they were not lig'
pinell, d to consider the honesty of the Minister.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had heard the statement of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home
Department. ghat Right lion. Gentl 'man said that he had
exercised the powers with which he was invested as Secretary
of State solely with a desire to preserve the public peace. An
Hon. Member on his side of the House believed that his letters
lad been opened, and he asked the Secretary whether stieh
were the east or not. Now, he ( Lord J. Russell) could not
help expressing himself as disiatisfied with the Government
persisting in the course which they had taken—( Hear, hear)--
and he felt that an Hon. Member was degraded when the
correspondence between himself and his constituents was
violated. The Right lion. Baronet said that he acted solely
with a regard to the public peace. They had not said that
the Hon. Member had been engaged in any treasonable or
improper correspondence, for if he had that would give the act
cf the Minister another feature. But the Right Hon. Gentle
man would not give any answer, theugh he (Lord .1. Russell)
thought that he might have done an. It therefore appearedte
him that the letters of the Hon. Member had been opened.
whether the officers of the Post-office were called t'
the bar of the Hume or not, it was clear that if the letters
had been opened they had violated the privileges of the Hove'
The Right Hod. Baronet said nothing of this privilege, but he
declared that notling had transpired to show that the Hoes
Member for Finsbury had acted otherwise than as a loyal sub-
ject of her Majesty, and that nothing had come to his kola that affected his character as a Member cf that Hoye.
This declaration he (Lord John Russell) thought very mat
tonally altered the position of the question before them. ti•
was ready to take the declaration thus made. Had it not been
made, he might have felt that, considering the circumstance
that a high privilege of that House had in his opinion beers
violated, a further investigation was necessary. 130
he
thought that that declaration made a material difference. ea
he now conceived that that investigation was uncalled fof•
The answer, it was tree, was unsatisfactory ; and, in his op_i,
nion, to have given an answer, yes or no, would have been far
better than the course which the Right lion. Baronet had Pr;
sued. Yet, notwithstanding this, there was still a reserve
point of which he ought to have the benefit. If a person his
cused of a treasonable conspiracy were to ask him whether po_
letters had been opened or not, he would not be bound to gir.
a direct answer to the question. After three nights' debate, nu,
conceived that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor 001
the Exchequer would not come to the discussion of his 044,,
particular topic with any very pleasant feeling. The Rig''"
Hon. Gentleman seemed to have established a different stair"
dard of rebellion than that of '45. He feared no rebellion
against the Crown or the Throne ; the rebellion of which 11_
seemed to be afraid was a rebellion of the ee&
benches.—( Laughter and cheers.) Happily for hive:
self, he (Lord John Russell) had no appreigs
sion of such a rebellion —it did not & ,
him.—( Laughter on the Ministerial side.) But there we' He
other topic to which he must allude before he sat down. did
alluded to the opening of the letters of M. Mstazini. _
sa
think that this was an act unworthy of the country, ands uc"."„
the most despotic Government of Europe would hardly
dined to commit, and one which was altogether ineon4"l.6o
with the freedom of the country. He did not believe the
Government had any intention to betray a person reveal
within the British dominions, and lie had entertained siouri, s
hie
that information had been furnished to foreign Powers W.t.
might cruelly implicate persons who had been enjoying
protection. He was happy to say that that impression D.. 110,
been removed by the explanation which had been given toms
other place. For these reasons he could not vote for the el
tion of the Hon. Member, but should, on this occasion, cur
port the Government.—( Loud cries of " Divide, divide. "),,t,
Mr. M. MILNES rose amid such clamour, and with °Lie
culty obtained a hearing. He said he was anxious top x
why he was about to take the part of a rebel, and on this ° a,
sion vote for the motion of the Hon. Member for
His vote had nothing to do with his support of the GlOO,
ment, or with the character or feelings or honour of the
0,0
Member for Finsbury. But he believed a secret warrant t..,„,
an anomaly, and of no avail tor any act which 'was toe bele&
titled. because it was bad for an act not intended to be js,",e,
and if Col. Maberly were to be brought to the bar of that 111?°„8,
he could give no further information than he had already g'sl:_ar
He regarded his Right Hon. Friend es the head police ter
of the kingdom.—(Great laughter.) As the first Minis rose
Finsburiv
the Home Department, his surveillance was extensive shie
powerful. He would net refuse to vote with the Honoerosii
Member for Finsbury, because he thought by refusing, it w„dhy
leave the question open whether or not they had been Or.- dill
the Post-office underlings.—( Hear, hear.) Besides, he b tie
not know but on some future occasion the power whie 410
Home Secretary possessed, but which he declined to eiPices
the exercise of to the House, might be abused by isenr, hi.
honourable or conscientious Minister. He believed
oßer
heart that the Right Hon. Baronet had not abused the P chef
the law conferred upon him, but there was no guaranteeindie
under other circumstances, and in the hands of otber, cos
viduals, it might not be abused. On these simple eni°Graet
stitutional grounds he would support the motions-4
cheering from the Opposition.) Of
Mr. WATSON, who rose amid loud and earnest erie'the
" divide," said he would not trespass on the House, b°.`ooo
country called upon its representatives to record their °Non
on this subject. He would vote for the motion of the
co
Member for Finsbury.—(Cheers.) The question of erovi•
Members' letters would ultimately become a question of i 0 ,b.
lege ; but previously to that it was necessary to secertsl the
facts of the case. That could be only done 12y calliPgJed
Post-office officers to the Bar of the House. When mind,'
question affecting the rights of Members was to be ass er arich'
it should be considered whether it trenched upon thetrar the
leges. A most important admission had been made
e air
Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, who said that to been
cretion exercised by the Secretary of State had never tee*
considered by the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) Will" oel4
was the meaning of the " verdict of the Committee. toot:
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in the fervour of arguce
struck the hat of Mr. Hawes who sat beneath him, and lc before
it off; roars of laughter followed, and it was some time
the House regained its usual gravity.] The Committeenasot
in point of fact, given no verdict in favour of the Goselvas it
for they had never considered the question at all- t Hon*
not then monstrous to tell the country that the Rigutf Lon'Baronet, or the Noble Lord the Member for the city 0f
we
don, had been ac ,uitted, when the matter of which thele of
accused had never been investigated.—( Renewed it
" Hear, hear.") Then, if it had not been investigated.,,s'y
necessary to take the next step which the House could 10 tbs
call the Post-office officers to the bar of the House., awl
discussions on this question they had heard great tetkiiaes•
motives, but how could they talk about motives or Ifore the
The Right Hon. Gentleman had been merely called be,Bitir
Committee and asked how many warrants he had issue ate
out inquiring into the circumstances. In the last deou-seliir
took the liberty of addressing the House, and told the ;nee
he now believed, that those general warrants were 4e sPrsa
He was told that there had been general warrants stn orals
It was no such thing. Was the licensing of thIL
Charles the Second legal? Was it the sYstelnaah °I
present day ? Then the Secretary of State Orr
warrant to seise upon certain papers, but the geoe'llseese
rants had been deprecated by courts of law, and °at iire.hte,
they had been -brought under t'he notice of the judges Ts of f",j
minster-hall, condemned as illegal. The warrens it sv--.
licensing system were not general warrants. In 1691,1 viler;,
held that opening a Member's letters was a breach of P.. 0% e j
in 1822, the House had to consider the question of oMcber by;
tens going to the prisons at Manchester, from •pg t:,
Parliament, and the House then declared that (OP,:
letters of the Members of that House was a breach of its P
leges. If it were in that case a breach of privilege, hoiletabet
a greater breach when the letters were addressed to i. 5
be by one of his constituents.—( Hear, hear.) ref Oa,
dared, in the face of the country, his solemn aid Iv
he believed general warrants to be illegal, an 00 b 8
was the opinion of the best lawyers in Weetniins' of too
(Hear, hear)—and he consequently considered the IC to tit
of
present and of former Home Secretaries, in referenceeretstihe
warrants, to be illegal and unconstitutional. A Se_aka
State—nor several Secretaries of State—could eetsrbe eSot"o•
law. Custom, and privilege, and prerogative, 0% sjecio,ot
blished by usage, or by Acts of Parliament, or by turai voirf,'d
of the courts of law.—(Hear, hear.) This gene ivilege
system appeared to be somewhat similar to that "Pr „Dort
robbing on Gad's-hill, which it was atsempted
sisaae.—( The Hon. and Learned Member concludes' s
• load,
tog he would support the motion.) so „re
Mr. HUME rose, when the cries of i 4 Divide " f!. if be 'IO
to oertiv
and the confusion so great, that the Hon. Member salt:1108010
in any manner interrupted, he would move al° 3400 t?„„iat
of the debate. He was determined to give exPre ono
sentiments on this question, which was altogetheriscesi 01the
one. It was a question in which the Committee... Poi hoeitb.
more importance than the House. He did not kuanieg °lee
Plight Hon. Baronet could refuse inquiry. The aP', that,
out a warrant was decidedly illegal, and he believ_en,kessise.to
when a warrant existed, the practice was illegaolo'
rage 'lOO
(Hear, hear.) It was a great want of moral c t the w‘koot'
Right Hon. Baronet not to declare whether or ncl to the tbel
had beets issued. He allowed the odium to attacherr'nt thei
office authorities ; and if they had opened with st
Tied'
were not to blame, and if they had not been opelebees 014 e, else
were equally innocent. But he believed they h!" 'evil?: the
The Right Hon. Baronet had not denied that tneho.
Hon. Member for Finsbury had been opened t1.1._ uity; ° wee
House did not stultify itself it most grant the !eqs, more ass,
wise it would be lost in public favour. Notbn tooettne;,,
required than that Colonel Maberly should bei,c,
aelsalcher's le. Se
and asked, first, if he had opened the Hon. ea ,a 8 elottafee
and if so, by whose authority? If by that of 4_"victeil y'sa's
cretary he must exonerate himself, or stand con oenslef:or
the country. He must say that the Right 11,13 e 000. fot
treatment of his Hon. Friend was very hard. ialenall'd in
beg then read extracts from the speech of the IT•a„,,eiete_Lft
Finsbury last session, before the Committee es to rerrisaa
which the Hon. Member asked the Co he eurthert of
whether or not his letters had been ; an", the eon`
Glared his intention of re-opening theinquiry,.lii"ttee
the Committee was unsatisfactory. The I,,°o'finourlisib hie
w-iictorY•
reported in reference to the Hon. Memberactorrdacf.estist
plaint ; and the Hon. Member had, in
ed
profession, asked for an inquiry, as the rep hip wsislrflon•_;ing
—( Hear, hear.) The insinuations respect' gas no
that he had been in correspondence with pert! e now
0,
`,:t. night' the
istote:s
bt:
for their crimes, must be most painful
bto he rigrlt 11.10
Hon. Member, and surely into such a c ar,l3
r" beer.) f the
in—ancbritu.ee:yhtrnow:gidt•o°ofool:ol:o,
quiry could not be justifiably denied.—(
Right Hon. Gentleman tacitly admitted
vit ; ed
Hon. Member's letters, and he shouldsboi.ect
manner of the Right Hon. Baronet
steolfuettotsbcocohooargor
andman ifo
fh e
spirith ad noort , wouldbhoeno
or
wouldha ve baeueonw.pt rho
himself
if be were induct 04
with such conduct without denying swing the ar'bypyieg
The Hon. Meer concluded by
he
eerhdo
hoped the
John
he Russelllio Hon.
.for his
Gentleman cl ec l ar at
wouldi on e_t
• 5e4
drop until he had obtained that red
justice entitled.—( Cheers. ) be
r ens os t
ta
01 I owl Bich he Os in
with the conduct of Ministers, nor
Mr. AGLIONBY said the country
wwiotbuldth7ressardloot,be;l
considered at all in Committee. Ht'use'aree
Member of this had boar.
the Committee, and neither a
Committee, for, in point of fact, the rebel stsbjeet h& ned OP '8
nt.--( gesc'edi lb°
forming a judgme c,inaern abe
lowed an opportunity of
persons out of doors interested in the question,
Finse
had been donown eb
public were not satisfied that justic
trieve its
As far as the Hon. Member for burye, cgs
r Hear, bear' )a toe ego 0.
os
racter, by granting the inquiry.—a
ee the "°•aht P°llo
(Mr. Aglionby) implored the House to re
Mr. JERVIS said that the decisten ui_
t_
a. r
I thad
tl
bee
*lraP
°l.
1.11.
the motion would not satisfy the countryhars`tateral
plot
Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham)
the ehe"cauffien
°F,nrodmer!te!c•of
_tahse Hon*te_ri:of t
flTreFinsbury,
roi
sf b
ur nothingy,
whichin the cl
do t roeosrop
Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear, hear.) Buto,r_ gentlensilo:/
Was it sufficient to sooth the feelings e
;g°utriet° wed
ed
Member of the House of Commons tonsay
(Laughter.) A Gentleman, a Member
rs had been° We' it
I have opened your letters but I found d noithitnhgstln„sloetirede;a.si,sa
up in his place and said that his lette to ayes
all that he asked of the
oHpoeunseed....._yrclheere') Of °I
a arra,'" he t°
by what authority they toe wla there Os
clear that they had been opened upon
f it were c'3°'lttit°
e warranta?—(Cheers.) f , on
Secretary
produ of State? If so, what objection coo g.aded
the Minister should have the power of a rani'