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

0 latint(4llll

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1845.

The House of Lords met last evening at Five
o'Clock.

Among the petitions presented was one by Lord
CAMPBELL, complaining of the abstraction by the
postmasters in the receiving-houses of London, of
newspapers confided to their care for transmission by
the post. The Noble Lord gave notice that he wauld
to-morrow (this day), move for a return of the
number of applications which had been made to the
post-office, during the last twelve months, com-
plaining of the miscarriage of newspapers.
The LORD CHANCELLOR laid on the table a Bill,
allowing of Bail in Error, in cases of misdemeanor.
In answer to various complaints on the subject of
want of accommodation in the present House of Peers,

Lord REDESDALE stated that he had no doubt but
that the new House would be rc ady for the accommo-
dation of their Lordships at the beginning of next

ession.

Lord STRANGFORD gave notice of a motion for a
return of the number of Roman Catholic students in
Trinity College, Dublin ; and the Earl of D ALHOUSIE
said a few words deprecating any discussion for the
present as to the conduct of the Board of Trade in
regard to railways; after which their Lordships
adjourned.
The House of Commons met at Four o'Clock.

The Manchester and Carlisle Railway BI and
the London and York Railway Bill were respectively
read a first time.

Various petitions were presented, and notices of
motion given. Among the latter were, a notice by
Sir CHARLES NAPIER, on going into Committee on
the Navy Estimates, for a Commission to inquire
into the state of the Navy, and of the defences to
the dockyards.—One by Mr. COBDEN, for a Com-
mittee to inquire into the operation of the Corn-laws on
the tenant-farmers.—One by Mr. WALLACE, for the
6th of March, for a Commission to inquire into the
state of Railway travelling; and one by Mr. HUME,
for that day fortnight, on the subject of the recal of
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.

Lord DUNCAN postponed his motion on the win-
dow-tax to the 27th.

Mr. E. TENNENT stated that it was not at present
intended to increase the facilities of steam communi-
cation with Bombay.
Sir J. GRAHAM stated, in answer to a question,
that it was his intention to bring in a Bill, to settle
the law with respect to orders of magistrates in bas-
tardy cases.
A. long conversation then took place on the subject
of the unfortunate Bandeiras, in the course of which
Sir R. PEEL repeated the statement that he had
made on a previous occasion, and added, in answer to
a question of Sir C. NAPIER, that Lord SEATON had
not sent a boat after them, to warn them of their
danger, after he had received a communication from
the Consuls. He said he had no objection to lay be-
fore the House the substance of the correspondence
which had taken place on the subject, but begged
Lord J. RUSSELL to defer until to-morrow a question
which he put on the subject of the spy who had be-
trayed these unfortunate men to the Neapolitan Go-
vernment. In the subsequent part of the evening the
Right llon. Baronet stated that Lord SEATON had
placed at the disposal of the Neapolitan Consul the
means of communicating to the Neapolitan au-
thorities the fact of the departure of the Bandeirai
for Corfu.

Mr. G. W. HOPE, the Under-Secretary to the Co-
lonies, said the Government had received no notice
whatever of the Bandeiras being in Corfu, to which
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE replied—" Why it was in M AZ-
ZINI'S letters."

Mr. MACKINNON, after some slight opposition, ob-
tained leave to bring in a Bill for the prevention of
the nuisance arising from the smoke of factories.
Mr. WATSON obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
the further repeal of enactments imposing pains and
penalties on her MAJESTY'S Roman Catholic subjects
on account of their religion.
Sir J. GRAUAM obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate the appointment and payment of clerks of
Petty and Quarter Sessions.
On the motion of Mr. WAKLEY, a return was
ordered of the petition of the Council of the College
of Surgeons to her MAJESTY, praying for the new
Charter of last year.

Mr. IluatE moved for a Committee to inquire into
the management of lighthouses, which was agreed to.
The adjourned debate on the subject of the
Post. office espionage was then resumed by Mr. Al.
AIILNEs, who stated that he had recently travelled in
the countries in which the unfortunate events referred i
to had occurred, and that, in consequence of them,
the most painful suspicions attached to the conduct
of this country. If these warrants were necessary, it
would have been much better that they should have
been issued by Lord ABERDEEN. It was satisfactory
to know that the opening of MAZZINI'S letters was
not connected with the unfortunate expedition of tl e
BANDEIRA family. It was Lord ABERDEEN'S
duty, under the circumstances, to have given public
notice that the English Government were aware of
the existence of this conspiracy and determined to
defeat it, and then in all probability the unhappy ex-
pedition would never have taken place. With regard
to the Hon. Member for Finsbury, he thought he
had a right to a distinct answer as to whether a war-
rant bad been issued for opening his letters or not,
hut he should not support the motion, because, by so
doing, he should be giving a colour to the foul misre-
presentations of which his Right Hon. Friend had
been the object.
Mr. MACAULAY could not vote for the motion, inas-
much as it implied a censure upon the Secret Committee
of last year, the members of which, he believed, had
done their duty honestly. He thought the power of
opening letters should be continued to the Secretary of
State, but that every letter :lo opened should be for-
warded to the person to whom it was addressed, with a
stamp upon the back of it, stating that it had been opined
by the proper authorities. He thought Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE had a right to know whether or not a
warrant had been issued for opening his letters, and
although he had been led by the specious arguments
of the Right Hon. Gentleman to vote last session for
the exclusion of Mr. DUNCOMBE from the Committee,
yet when he looked to the constitution of the Lords'
Committee on the subject, which had been appointed
a few days after, he could not compliment the Right
Hon. Gentleman on his spirit of fair dealing. If the
motion had been for inquiry simply into Mr. T.
DUNCOMBE'S case, he would have supported it.
Mr. J. WORTLEY opposed the motion as one calcu-
lated to attach an unjust stigma on the name of the
Right Hon. Baronet. He denied that the Right
Hon. Baronet had used the power of opening letters
unnecessarily or unjustly, and objected to the ap-
pointment of a public Committee, because it would
be impossible for it to elicit information. The public
gratitude was due to the Right Hon. Baronet for
having suppressed the disturbances in 1842 without
employing spies, whereas in 1839 the former Admi-
nistration had had recourse to their employment.
Mr. WARD thought Mr. T. DUNCOMBE ought to have
a Committee of Inquiry into his own case, and he
would support his motion, provided it were simply
for an open Committee to inquire into his own case.
Lord JOHN MANNERS entirely concurred in the
view taken of the subject by Mr. WARD. He thought
the Right Hon. Baronet should state distinCtly what
hal been done with regard to Mr. T. DUNCOMBE'S
letters, for nothing could be more mischievous, if not
dangerous, than to leave the matter as it was
He besought the Hon. Member for Finsbury so to
word his motion, as to „enable him to vote for it
without casting an imputation upon the Committee
of last year, or upon the Right Hon. Baronet, upon
whom so many cruel and unjust aspersions had been
already cast.

Captain L &YARD supported the motion, which was
opposed by Sir R. INGLIS.
Mr. BERNAL thought. no man could justify the
course which had been pursued by the Government
with regard to the Right Hon. Member for Finsbury,
who was undoubtedly entitled to an inquiry ; but he
thought that it ought to be limited to the case of the
Right Hon. Member for Finsbury, and hoped an
amendment would be moved to that effect. As the
motion stood he could not support it; but if inquiry
were refused, he should advise the Hon. Member to
summon to the bar of the House the Post-office
officials who had opened his letters.
After some further further discussion, the House
divided upon the question of adjournment, when
the numbers were, for the adjournment, 29, against
it, 269. _ _

,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose to address the
House, but the interruption he experienced was so
general, that in a short time he resumed his seat ;

when,

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that as at least a hundred
Members had left the House, he considered it ad -
visable that the question should be adjourned until
to-day (Friday.)
The House adjourned at a Quarter-past One.

The clever speech in wirch Mr. Rosnuca on Wed
nesday brought forward Ills unsuccessful amendment
on Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Proposition for renewing the
income-tax, sth Vicxost—namelv, And that the
provisions of the said Act, as far as regards the tax
on property, be intended to Ireland"--provoked a
somewhat smart debate. Nor is this any matter for
wonder. The warmest and most consistent friends