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

them an intimation of the danger that was hanging over them;
• but he undo: stood the Noble Lord to say, that the explanation
upon that particular point had been entirely satisfactory. He
could not but regret that the House had commenced this dis-
cussion with an imputation throe n out upon en lion Gentle-
man on the opposite benches ; but he was glad the explanation
had proved sati factosy, for nothing would have been more pain-
. ful to him than that such an imputation should have remained
unsettled. Ile would not discuss with the Hon. ard Lear.led
Gentleman the question which he had again agitated, as to
whether the issuing of the v arrants could be satisfactorily
maintained in a court of law. Supposing the lion. Gentleman's
reition to be maintained in a court of law—supposi: g that
these warrants were not s metioned by the common law of the
country, Set stili the responsibility would fall upon the House,
and not upon the Executive Government. The power was cer-
tainly not immediately ranctimed by a statute; but then they
had introduced words into the statute which led to the impres-
sion that the Government had the power to exercise this autho-
rity. All past Governments had exercised the power of open-
ing letters, and, therefere, if they were found
to be in; the wrong, the blame would not at-
tach to the Minister, but to Parliament. It was
the duty of the House to clear up all doubt on the
matter by a declaratory statement that such power existed. But
he would not enter further into the question, but merely to re-
mark that any alteration in the custom ought to be reserved for
a separate discussion. The power ought to be maintained for
reasons stated by the Noble Lord opposite, but he thought it
would be attended with danger to make the recommended
public proclamation. Ile should, however, be always prepared
to remedy any abuse of the power.—( Hear, hear.) With
respect to the subject immediately under consideration,
he did not say whether or not there should be now a
public inquiry at the bar of the House, with respect to
the alleged opening of the letters of the Hon. Member. Some
Hon. Member who had spoken recently had imputed to them
that they had made a charge against the Hon. Gentleman—that
they were not the defendants, but the Hon. Member was being
charged by us with improper transactions. Now not one
word of that charge had they ever said. It was Ate Honour-
able Member himself, who, it appeared, relying upon informa-
tion which he received from the Post-office, publicly declared
that his letters had been opened, or that he strongly suspected
they had. Now, if the Hon. Gentleman had not made that
declaration, no one would have known that the Hon. Gentle-
man had any ground for suspicion. So that, in fact, the Hon.
Member had made the charge himself. The question which
then came was, whether, in consequence of this suspicion
entertained by the Honourable Gentleman, they should
summon the officers of the Post-office to the bar
of the House, and institute a public inquiry. Now,
it had been admitted in the course of that debate, that
the Hoe. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, stood in
no different position from any other subject of her Majesty.
Thus, every individual out of the House possessed the same
tights the Hon. Member did. If, therefore, his Right Hon.
Friend were to answer the question of a Member of
Parliament, or acceded to the motion, they would have a
petition presented by another individual, not being a Member
of that House, alleging that his letters had been opened, and
would he not have the same right to demand an answer as well
as the Hon. Member fur Finsbury ? Now, if they acceded
to this amendment, they would compel the Government to
answer this question, or the party would turn round upon them,
and say, he was not protected by the law.—(Hear, hear.) They
would have no end to these question., and they would have
to summons Colonel Maberley to the bar of that House
time after time. He entirely agreed with those Hon. Members
who said this was not a personal matter. lie claimed a full
participation in the responsibility of his Right Hon. Friend.
He defended the exercise of this power, and he considered that
every Member of the Government was liable to share in the
responsibility which attached to it. Now, let him ask, if his
Hon. Friend were to answer the question, would it forward the
necessity for inquiry ? No, certainly not. Then, would the
House of Commons be acting justly with the Government in
insisting upon a reply from his Right Hon. Friend? Last year
they thought it desirablethat a full and complete inquiry should
be made into these practices to allay the public excitement
which prevailed on the subject. In order that every explana-
tion should be given, it was thought that the inquiry ought to
be made before a Secret Committee, very few dissented to the
proposition, and the general opinion of the House appeared to
be in favour of the Committee, as compared with any other
tribunal. There was no divi-ion whatever upon the subject,
and by the vote of the House it was determined that a Secret
Committee should be appointed. Upon that
.;Committee there
were nine Gentlemen, five of whom had recorded their votes
against the Government, upon a leading political question.
The Committee sat, and immediately afterwards it was stated
to them that. in the autumn of 1842, during the disturbances in
South Wales, two clerks of the Post-office were sent down to
the disturbed districts with warrants, and directions to open
and inspect the letters of certain persons.—( Hear, hear.)
By the frankness and unreservedness of their explanations be-
fore the Committee and the public of the facts of the dates of
the warrants, other parties would be led to seek similar re-
dress. Would they call the officers of the Post-office on the
presentation of a petition, that petition prompted by the
inquiry of that Committee ? Would they call on the Secre-
tary of State to say whether he had issued his warrant or not,
and if he declined answering that, would they have an inquiry
at the bar?

Mr. DUNCONIBE—It is privilege.
Sir IL PEEL continued—The Hon. Gentleman fell back
on privilege. The Hon. Gentleman was pressed by the argu-
ment. He felt that he (Sir R. Peel) had proved so com-
pletely that once open an inquiry in this case, and they could
not limit it. The Hon. Gentleman now said it was a case of
privilege.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—I always said so.
Sir 11. PEEL continued—Others had contended that there
was no distinction in that respect between the Hon. Gentle-
man and the meanest subject of the realm. Other persons
would say, " You appointed a Committee on general allega-
tions not proved, and you have appointed an examination at
your bar because a Member states that he can prove that his
letters have been opened. I have no remedy by law. I ask
yon to give me the same, advantage you have given one of your
own Members. My character was risked as his was. I have
no remedy in a court of law. Let the have the satisfaction you
have given to him : call the officers to the bar, and ask them
to show the legality of the warrants for opening my letters."
It would be vain to draw the distinction of a breach of pri-
vilege, insofar as that question was now concerned. The Hon.
Gentleman did not bring it forward now as a question of pri-
vilege. In that case, then, he (Sir R. Peel) said that it was
acting unjustly towards the Government. The Government
had been told that the inquiry would be a secret one. • They
were told that the tribunal would be a fair and impartial one.
They were called before that tribunal, and they gave
their evidence, and that tribunal acquitted them of
all improper motives, and yet it was now said, that that ac-
quittal was not complete, and an inquiry at the bar was caled
for. If there was to be that public inquiry they could not
limit it to this particular case. They were surely bound to
inquire into the acts of others. They must go into an exami-
nation of the acts of their predecessors, or the examination
would not be complete. The inquiry must extend to all the
warrants which had been issued since 1832. If that kind of
inquiry were demanded, could they consistently refuse it ? If
Colonel Alaberly were brought to the bar and a Member were
to extend the inquiry beyond the limits of the Hon. Gentle-
man's motion, would they call on the Speaker to stop the exa-
mination on the ground that Colonel Maberly had been called
for a specific purpose ? It would be impossible. It would be
inconsistent with common justice. They must extend the
inquiry to the case of every petitioner who could make out as
bad a prima facie case as that of the Hon. Member for
Finsbury—and he really could not conceive where the man
was who could not—they must extend that inquiry to every
petitioner who told them that he was labouring under an un-
just imputation, and therefore wished to rescue his character
from an unjust suspicion. But they must go further. They
should extend the public inquiry to the warrants which had
been in existence since 1822. Hr did not believe that any
former Government would have reason to deprecate that. He
firmly believed that this power, when exercised by the Noble
Lord, was exercised for honest and public purposes. He was
as firmly convinced as that as that he was then addressing the
House.—(Cheers.) He did not suppose that the Noble Lord
would deprecate inquiry from personal motives.—(" Hear,
hear," from Lord John Russell.) But did they think it de-
sirable to institute such an inquiry? His firm conviction was,
that they would never get a more complete and perfect in-
quiry than that of the Secret Committee. He wished
to convince the House that they could not limit
this inquiry to individual cases. On this, and
the other grounds which he had stated, he must
give his opposition to the motion of the Honourable Gentle-
man. He would have closed here, had it not been for the
speech of the Hon. Member for Shrewsbury. He hoped the
Hon. Member, having discharged the bile which had been ac-
cumulating during the past week, felt himself more at ease
than he was.—(Laue,hter.) He told the lion. Gentleman
at once that he would not reciprocate personalities.—( Cheers.)
If he felt an inclination to de so, the Hon. Gentleman cer-
tainly would have a great advantage over him.—( Cheers and
laughter.) He thought he had found sufficient allusions of a
personal nature. He had heard them made from benches im-
mediately behind him, and he never felt it necessary to answer
them. He would not have answered them if it had net beers
that the Hon. Gentleman seconded a motion of which he en.•
tirely disapproved, which he said he did in a friendly spirit. In
the course of his speech, the Hon. Gentleman charged him
(Sir R. Peel) with having appointed to office a gentleman who
had beers concerned in a plot. lie would make no reference to
that, because the Honourable Gentleman had made a very
honourable apology. He did not think he was at liberty
to refer to it, because the Honourable Gentleman having
been betrayed into an error, had frankly avowed
it. But it was in consequence of the declaration made by
the Hon. Gentleman in seconding the motion that he did in
a friendly spirit. At that time there was a feeling running
through the House, which in this country there was no word to
express, but which, in the French Chambers, was termed the
me cement vivace. Be could assure the Hon. Gentleman that
he had not the slightest wish to fetter his independence, or
the independence of any Member of that House. He thought
that every man should be the guardian of his own indepen-
dence, and if he disapproved of any act of the Government, or
disapproved of the general policy of the Government, he
might censure the act and condemn the Government. He had
no power to exercise by which he could prevent the Hon.
Gentleman from adopting an independent course of
action. He ( Sir Robert Peel) courted no man's favour.
He thought he understood the relation in which a Minister
ought to stand towards those who gave him general support.
He thought it well to possess their confidence, and he thought
he would not incur the risk of losing that confidence by taking
the course which he believed was for the public interest.
That course he had taken, anti that course he would continue
to take. If the Hon. Gentleman thought any acts of his (Sir
R. Peel) were at variance with the policy which he supported
in 1834 in Government and since, let those acts be exstnined,
and let the lion. Gentleman vote 'against them and condemn
there. If, continued the Right lion. Baronet, in respect to
the Church, you think that any course pnrsued by the Govern-
ment endangered that institution, it would be suffi-
cient to oppose that particular act. If you think
that we have, at variance with our principles, greatly extended
popular privileges, or invested fresh blood of democracy into
the working of the Constitution, tell us so and oppose it. If
you deny our commercial and financial policy, oppose the par-
ticular act ; and if you should think that we are no longer
worthy of your credit or confidence, mark your want of confi-
dence by a public declaration of opinion, and by a distinct op-
position. I should deeply regret the loss of that confidence to
which the Hon. Gentleman refers, hut I firmly say that, as
the Minister of the Crown, I will attempt to do good as far
as 1 can; and if, in attempting to do that, I should forfeit
the confidence which I have so much prided, I shall adopt
that course. rather than retain that confidence at the
expense of public opinion.—( Cheers. ) A 3 I said before, if
our general policy he objectionable—if it is not sound—if we
are interfering with the rights of property—if we arc infringing
the prerogatives of the Croton—if we are undermining our
civil or sacred institutions—prove that we have done so, and I
should acknowledge that your confidence has been forfeited.
Sir, the lion. Gentleman has referred to the relations in which
I stand to Mr. Canning, and thinks, oU that account, he is
fairly entitled to withhold his confidence and respect. Sir, it
ought not to be a quotation from Mr. Canning that should open
the Hon. Gentleman's eyes to my misfortune. The Hon.
Gentleman must have been aware in 1841, and subsequently,
of those relations towards Mr. Canning and of the course
which I have pursued with regard to that most eminent man ;
and the knowledge of that course, not an accidental quotation
from a poem, ought to have disentitled me to the Hon. Gen-
tleman's confidence and respect at a much earlier period than
now. But, Sir, as I said before, it is not my intention to re•
ciprocate personalities with the Honourable Gentleman. Ido
not wish, in the slightest degree, to fetter hi