Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 1st March 1845, Edition 2 of 4, Page 4, . THE LEGALITY OF LETTER-OPENING.' The r...

Page 4
Page 4
4 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • THE NOETHERN STAR SATURDAY , MARCH 1, 1815.
  • Adverts (1)
  • Text (6)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      X' ¦ ' ' T L O ' N " ' ' % C—•• * -^ The...

      X' ¦ ' ' T L O ' N " ' ' % c—•• * - ^ THE ! -ftHflRJT mWk RjJJJ ^ __^ _ , _„ „ , „ „ , _ ,,, „ ,.,, _^ . „ ... : zMmk . .: \ 84 ^

      <R = Post Office Espionage. Gr.Eat Publi...

      < r = POST OFFICE ESPIONAGE . GR . EAT PUBLIC IkiEETING OF THE ELECTORS AND INHABITANTS OF FINSBURY . OaWednesaay night last , a meeting of the elec tors and inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury eonvenei by requisition , -was held at the White Conduit House Tavern , Pentonville , relative to the opening of letters at the Post-office , addressed to Mr . T . S . Duncombe , the repre sentative of ™* borough . The spacious hall was densely crowded . On tFe platform were T . Wakley , Es ^ Y ' F iff p C . . Napier , M . P ., and R . J . Blewitt , Esq ., MJ \ , snpno ^ dWa large number of MuentndRectors of all shades of politics . Richard Taylor , Esq ., com mon comicilman of the City of London , was called to ^ T-L ( £ «» . « said lhai the borough of Finsbury

      iaddoneitselfgreateredit * ^ 2 £ ^ iZZ * % sent representatives -they were both gentlemen of great ability , perseverance , and courage In proporfionas a public man was courageous he became in object of suspicion to the Government , fhe power of opening letters in the Post-oflice might be a most dangerous weapon in the hands of a tyrannical Government . He ( Mr . Taylor ) recollected that during the time of the Sidmouth Administration , when it was deemed necessary to get up sham plots , the letters of Mr . Coke , of Norfolk , the late Earl of Leicester , were opened in order to obtain materials on whieh to ground a charge against him of hostility to the Government of the day . But such conduct would he tolerated no longer , for the people would

      not submit to such a monstrous -violation of that confidence which ought to subsist between the members and their constituents . The electors of Finsbury were bound to call upon the Government to wipe oif the stigma which it had attemnted to cast on the character of Mr . Duncombe . If they did not , they would he nnworthv of that reputation for public spirit which they had hitherto maintained . Mr . LisioNin moving thefirst resolution , observed that three distinct charges had been made against the Government—one was , that letters had been illegally opened and detained at the Post-oifice ; the next , that seals had been counterfeited to conceal that

      examination ; and the third was , that it bad been done to serve the interests of certain despotic Governments . Mr . Duncombe had called for explanation , hut he had obtained no answer . By Sir J . Graham he was metwith dogged silence ; by Lord Aberdeen "with subterfuge and false assertions ; and by Sir R . Peel with shnffling and evasion . The only answer given to Mr . Duncombe was contained in the reports of two committees which did not agree with each other . Mr . Buncombe's character had been most foully stigmatised , and it was the duty ofhis constituents to demand a full vindication from the Government . The resolution was as follows : —

      That this meeting learns with mortification and disgust that there exists at the General Post-oifice a secret spy system under which letters are broken open , seals counterfeited , and post-marks falsely imposed , in order to deceive the persons to whom such letters are directed , and to whom they are afterwards forwarded , while the information thus obtained has in some cases been used to promote despotic interests of foreign Governments ; that this meeting strongly denounces the existence of such disgraceful transactions , and , refusing to be satisfied with the report of the committee published at the Close Of the last session , deems it essentially necessary for the honour of this country , and also for public satisfaction and security , that a strict , searching , and open inquiry should be instituted into all the circumstances referred to in certain petitions presented to Parliament on this subject , in order that by such inquiry the manner in which such illegal and unconstitutional practices have been carried on , may be clearly exposed and brought to public shame .

      Mr . HoDOKEf seconded the motion . The question was between Sir J . Graham and Mr . Duncombe , the onp * renegade to Ms lornier party , the latter a straight-forward gentleman who had stood fast by his principles , and was at all times the zealous and independent advocate of popular rights . The motion was carried by acclamation . Mr . "Wa lker moved the next resolution : — That this tneeSngTiave read with indignation the statement made by our representative , 3 £ r , Thomas Buncombe , in his place in Parliament , that his correspondence has been clandestinely intercepted and secretly opened , under Government authority at the Post-office :

      that in the opinion of this meeting the only excuse for the exercise of snch power towards Mr . Duncombe , would be that the Government bad good reason to deem him capable of conduct which , if true , would , in our opinion , render him totally unfit to continue the representative of a free and independent constituency ; that we , therefore , feel it due to ourselves , as well as to Mr . Duncombe , to demand from the House of Commons such an investigation into the proceedings towards Lini as shall either justify the implied suspicions of the Government , or full y establish the innocence of our long tried and faiiufulrepresentative .

      The Secretary then read the following letter from Mr . Soncombe : — To the Electors of Finsbury hi Pulilic Meeting assembled . Gentlemen , —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of invitation , and to express to you my regret that recent events in Parliament have rendered it imperative on the norougn of Hnshury to meet on my Account—the fault , lowever , rests not with me , but with herJIajesry ' sJIinisters . . I need not now assure you how- happy I am , at all times , to meet those irhom it is my pride to represent , when questions affecting public interests are under their consideration , as upon such occasions you will do me the justice to admit I have never shrunk from doing that which I felt to be my duty .

      But , gentlemen , the question which you are convened to discuss appears to me to be of so peculiar and of so purely a personal character , that I think it would be most indelicate on my part to be present upon the occasion . in declining , however , the honour that you hare proposed to me , I hope I may be permitted to state that all that I J have asked of the House of Commons is that which I think I have a right to demand , viz ., an opportunity of removing those base suspicions implied by the tact of the Government having violated the sanctity of my correspondence . The expression of your independent opinion , I hope , will assist me in obtaining that satisfaction without which , I am convinced , you will agree with me , I cannot continue a member of the present House of Commons With either advantage to jfoa or credit to myself . I have the honour to be , gentlemen , Your obedient and faithful servant , Albany , Feb . 25 . Thojias S . Duncombe .

      The reading of ibis letter produced vehement cheering . - Mr . George Rogers said , he had often addressed ihem on the mal-practices of both "Whigs and Tories ); hut never did he ieel so indignant as on the present occasion . He had often thought and said the House of Commons was grossly immoral , and that its members should be sent about their business , that we might have the chance of selecting better men . ( Ht ar hear . ) But never before did he think them so immeasurabl y base ( hear , hear ) as they had now proved themselves by their sanction of the petty larceny TQlanies of the Home Secretary . ( Tremendous cheer ing . ) The electors of this borough had a duty toperform ; Finsbury was at the head of the democratic tree , ( loud cheers ) , and that position must be

      maintamed , lie took upon himself to say that no other 658 men , except in the lowest refuse of soeieiy , would have refused Mr . Duncombe ' s just request . ( Great cheering . ) Mr . Duncombe was a high-spirited and faithful champion of the people , and in justice to him and themselves , they were bound to obtain such an inquiry as would either acquit Mr . Duncombe , or place them , in a position to obtain another representative . ( Cheers . ) SirGnaBtEs Names came forward to support the resolution and in presenting himself was received with loud cheers . He said that whatever excuse might exist as to opening the letters of foreigners suspected of plotting against their country , the Go-Ternmenthad no right to violate the sanctity ol correspondence between a representative of the people and ] m constituents , Mr . Duncombe had put to

      Sir James Graham a plain simple question— " Did you open my letters , or did you not V He could get no answer . The matter was referred to two committees , bat the reports were silent with respect to Mr . Duncombe j upon that part of the case they made no report whatever . The question for the electors of Finsbury to decide was this—he had been suspected of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with some persons fit thia country . Was Mr . Duncombe capaWe of high treason ? ( Cheers , and cries of No , no . ) Well , then , yon must believe either that Mr . Duncombe was plotting against the Government , or that Sir J . Graham was plotting against Mr . Duntomhe . TJRuer these eireumstances , the electors of "finsbury had done right to demand a full inquiry into the subject . The resolution was carried unanimously .

      Mr . Cooper moved the third resolution as foll ows : — That a petition , embodying the foregoing resolutions , and praying the House of Commons to adopt such measures as will effectually prevent the recurrence of the abuses complained of , be signed on behalf of this meeting by the chairman and the committee , and presented by T . "ffaklcy , Esq ., our worthy representative . Dr . Eeps , in an eloquent speech , seconded the resolution , which was carried unanimously . The secretary then read the petition , which was an echo of the refjolutions , and moved its adoption . IL J . BtEwrxr , M . P ., seconded the motion , and said he attended there to testify his high admiration

      and esteem for the man they had chosen to represent them ; and his great detestation of the spy system adopted by the Home Secretary . His own opinion was , thai Mr . Duncombe ' s letters bad been opened without a warrant . Tho petition they were about toadoptshould have his moat cordial support , and Turther . solongasamotion could lie formed , and so long as Sir James Graham remained obstinate , so long would he support Mr . Dnncombe . ( Loud cheers , ) TJie petition was unanimousl y adopted . Mr . "Waklet ^ MP ., now rose amidst great applause , and said they had allotted him a duty which he should perform wifli great pleasure , and he hoped to their satisfaction , H © stood there in the double capacity of a citizen elector of Finsbury to protest

      <R = Post Office Espionage. Gr.Eat Publi...

      against the disgraceful spy systemi amr ' as a representative to obey his constituents' connnands . lhomas Slin"sby Duncomhe wasas bold , as honest , as faithful a representative of the people as could possibly he found or conceived of : —{ loud cheers)—a man who never dissembled—in whom there was no deception . "When Mr- Duncombe first mooted the question , some of the Hon . Gentlemen turned up their very aristocratic noses , and said pooh , pooh . But that answer would not do for Mr . Duncombe . Well , at length a committee was appointed , hut Mr . Duncombe was not allowed to he on it . No , he knew too much about it , and was too independent to report in favour of the Government . ( Cheers . ) Well , the committee got so deep in the love of

      antiquity that one of its members well nigh lost himself . ^ ( Loud laughter . ) It was said that men in Parliament were so virtuous , and so moral , ( laughter , ) that a declaration made there , was deemed better than an oath out of it . " Well , Mr . Duncombe made the declaration that his letters had been opened , and of course the charge was investigated by the Committee . No such thing . He had turned the folios of the report over and over , very ( MreMy , and bethought he had lost his eye-sight , for not a word did he find in that report relative to his Hon . Colleague . The report was unsatisfactory to Mr . Duncombe ( an extraordinary man he would have been if it had not ) . The electors of Finsbury had done themselves immortal honour by

      meeting as they had done that evening to defend their representative . If it had been a little girl , or an old maid , with an exuberance of curiosity that had been prying into their letters , it might have been excused , but a Government controling the destinies of millions being guilty of such baseness , was disgusting and abhorrent . ( Loud cheers . ) Mr . Wakley , in the course of bis speech , illustrated his argument by a reference to the ease of the expatriated patriot , John Frost , at the mention of whose name , the meeting rose en masse , and cheered and cheered again ; and , continued the Hon . Member , I contended then , and have always contended , that , had justice been done , that much injured man and his compatriots would have been instantly liberated . ( Renewed cheering . ) But , returning to the immediate case of Mr . Duncombe , his colleague said to Sir J . Graham , "You opened my letters . " The only answer he gets is : " What Ihave done , I have done on my own responsibility . " Now he ( Air . Wakley ) , should like to know how to make the Home

      Secretary really responsible . ( Hear , hear . ) The insinuation conveyed by opening the letters of his Hon . Colleague was a serious imputation on his character ; and in justice to Mr . Duncombe ' sconstituents Sir James Graham ought to have stated the facts . That Government was a base one who employed Spies , but now we had a Government who were themselves Spies . ( Cheers ) . Mr . Duncombe in bis letter read that evening , had intimated that unless an inquiry was granted whereby he might clear himself of the imputation cast on his character he must resign his seat ; ( loud shouts of no , no , no ) , that was the purport of the note . But should that be the case , it would be their pleasing duty to send him hack again . ( Loud cheering ) . Mi * . Wakley concluded by saying that he should present the petition , and would do all in his power to give effect to their views . The Hon . Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud and long-continued cheers .

      Mr . Elt moved a vote of thanks to the chairman , whieh was seconded by Mr . William Balls , and carried by acclamation . Three cheers were then given for 'Mr . Duncombe ; three cheers for Mr . Wakley , and three groans for Sir James Graham ; and this great and unanimous meeting dispersed .

      Ad00409

      THE MINERS' MAGAZINE . Edited by W . P . Boberts , Esq . THE Sixth Number will be published on the 9 th of March inst . Price Four-pence . The Lancashire Miners are requested to receive their numbers through their Delegates , who will be at the County Delegate Meeting on the 9 tb . of March . The MAGAZINE and all the back numbers may be obtained from the agents , Mr . Cleave , of London , or Mr . Heywood , Manchester ; or direct from Mr . Roberts' Offices , 2 , Robert-street , Adelphi , London ; 11 , Royal Arcade , Newcastle ; and 8 , Princess-street , Manchester .

      The Noethern Star Saturday , March 1, 1815.

      THE NOETHERN STAR SATURDAY MARCH 1 , 1815 .

      Lord Devon's Commission. The Peculiar An...

      LORD DEVON'S COMMISSION . The peculiar and delicate circumstances connected with the above commission led us to anticipate a very different document than the report with which the country has been favoured . The constitution of tho tribunal was calculated to inspire us with jealousy and suspicion ; wliilc tho objects to which attention should be directed were likely to be altogether merged in the necessity of vindicating that class to which the commissioners belonged from the accumulated loadof odium thattime andneglect have heaped upon their backs . Independently of these particular objections we had the more general feeling of contempt , arising from the fact , that all inquiries into the

      condition of the poorer classes have been confined to the very parties of whose misdeeds they have complained . Under these ckcumstances , while we were prepared for the very natural vindication of the landlords of Ireland , we confess that their true picture presented in every line of the report has taken us by surprise . Before we offer a passing comment on the several heads under which the commissioners have presented their report , we may be permitted to observe that the wholesale apology offered for the Irish landlords comports most strangely with the extensive representation of the people ' s sufferings . After

      commenting upon the reports of a select committee or two , the commissioners , beginning at the wrong end , with a holy reverence for their order , state as follows : — " Upon a review of the whole subject we feel hound to express our opinion , that there has been much of exaggeration and mis-statement in the sweeping charges which have been directed against the Irish landlords . " With great respect for the commission , we are of opinion that the apology should have fol-] owed , ** rather than have preceded , the " sweeping charges" established by the report against the Irish andlords .

      Now let us compare the following description of the condition of the people with the foregoing glowing apology : —• "We regret , however , to be obliged to add , in most parts of Ireland there seems to be by no means a corresponding advance in the condition and comforts of the labouring classes . A reference to the evidence of most of the witnesses vM show that the agriculturallabourer of Ireland continues to suffer the greatest privations and hardsldps ; that he continues to depend upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence ; that he is still badly housed , badly fed , badly clothed , and badly paid for his labour . Our personal experience and observations during our inquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of these statements ; and we cannot forbear expressing our strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have generally exhibited under sufferings , greater , we believe , than the people of any other country in Europe have

      to sustain . Again , under the head '' Labourers" we find the following extracts : — In adverting to the condition of the different classes of occupiers in Ireland , we noticed , with deep regret , ' the state of the cottiers and labourers in most parts of the country , from the want of certain employment . It would be impossible to describe adequately the privations which they and their families habituall y and patiently endure . It will be seen in the evidence that in many districts their only food is the potato , their only beverage water , that their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather , that a bed or a blanket is a rare luxury , and that nearly in aU , their p ig- and manure heap Constitute their onl y property .

      When we consider this state of things , and the large proportion of the population which comes under the designation of agricultural labourers , we have to repeat that the patient endurance which they exhibit is deserving of high commendation , and entitles them to the best attention of Government and of Parliament . Their condition has engaged our most anxious consideration . "Gp to this period any improvement that may have taken place is attributable almost entirely to the habits of temperance in which they have so generaUy persevered , and not , we grieve to say , to any increased demand for their labour . We deeply deplore the difficulty which exists in suggesting any direct means for ameliorating their condition .

      Here again we find a repetition of the sufferings of the poor which cannot he ascribed to the mis-statements or exaggerations *' of the coinmissioners ; and then we very naturally inquire as to the source from whence those grievances spring , whether from laws made by landlords , or from the illegal and uncivilised practices of those gentlemen . Upon this subject the report shall speak for itself , and from which we select the following unequivocal condemnation of thelandlords of L-eland . The report says—In common with the committee of 1832 , whose language we have quoted , we feel the bnpossihility of providing any direct remedy by legal enactment for the suffering described in the preceding extracts .

      The evil arises from the abuse of a right , of which the existence is essential to the maintenance of property ; but although -we cannot recommend any interference by law with the right , it does not follow that we should hesitate to expose the abuse , or to point out the means which , in our opinion , may and ought to be adopted to mitigate the evils resulting from it .

      Lord Devon's Commission. The Peculiar An...

      Now then , taking the above extracts as a fair representation of the sufferings of one class , and the conduct of the other class , what do we discover ? Why , that even the increased morality of , the people arising from increased temperance , haa not in the slightest degree tended towards their improvement and this " arises pbom the abuse of a niaHT , *' the existence of which " is essential to THE MAINTENANCE OP PROPERTY ; " SOI " abuse , " moreover , for the correction of which the commissioners cannot suggest or recommend any legal remedy . Are we not entitled to ask to what end , then , all this fuss and bother % when we discover

      that the existence of these " abuses" are essential to the maintenance of property . Suppose we say that the abuse " arises" from the middle system—from the clearance system—from bad tenure—want of improvements—consolidation of farms—recovery of rent —agency—sale of estates—want of agricultural h > struction—imperfect system of emigration—want of cultivation of waste lands—total dependence of the labourers : the several heads under which the commission has reported ; and will the commissioners inform us over which of these the landlords have not a power—the abuse of which has led to the necessity of this very commission , unwilling to suggest legal remedies for the abuses existing ?

      Before we offer a few suggestions on this report , we shall first state our preference for it over all documents of a similar nature that have been laid before the House of Commons . We should attach but very trifling importance to the report in question , if placed in the hands of a jobbing Whig Ministry , well knowing that it would be dismissed with a becoming lamentation for the grievances complained of , and a regret of the inapplitability of legal enactments for their correction—a tear for the sufferers , and a respect for the recommendations of the commissioners . Our trust , however , is , as we before intimated , that Sir Robert Peel will see in this report such a justification—nay , demand—for interference , as will enable him to base the right of Irish property upon some better title than the existence of an acknowledged " abuse . "

      Those readers who have learned the state of Ireland from the Northern , Star are already in possession of every single grievance set forth in the report ; while the corrections proposed are similar in character to what we have so frequently recommended ; and the result produced by the present system is precisely what wc have oftentimes stated it to he . Uncertainty of tenure we have described as the greatest evil against which Irish farmers have to contend : and , curious enongh „ the report makes a striking difference between want of tenure and uncertainty of tenure . We shall select a few extracts .

      TENURE . Under this head we find the following observations-It frequently happens that large estates in that country are held by the proprietors in strict limitation ; and the pecuniary circumstances of the landed proprietors generally , arising in some cases out of family charges , and resulting in others from improvidence or carelessness possibly of former proprietors , disable many , even of the best disposed landlords , from improving their property , or encouraging improvement amongst their tenantry , in the manner which toouW condacc at once to their ounv interest and the pullic advantage . Many ef the evils incident to the occupation of land in Ireland maybe attributed to this cause .

      Here we have an " abuse" of great magnitude , an hereditary " abuse , " and let us see the legal remedy proposed by the commissioners . The report goes on thus : — "We are of opinion that , for the permanent improvement of an estate—confining that expression to such operations as may properly be considered of an agricultural character— tenants for life , dndother persons under legal disability , shoidd . be empowered , jii & jcet to proper and efficient restrictions , to charge the inheritance , to an amount not exceeding three years' income , for such improvements , being bound to repay the principal by instalments , and to keep down the interest . This is no new principle . Again : —

      It most never be forgotten that an improved cultivation , with the consequent increase of produce from the soil , and of comfort to the occupier , are not matters of private or individual interest only , but are intimately connected with the preservation of public tranquillity and the general prosperity of the whole empire . Again : — We alsotliinkit wouldbe desirable that extended leasing powers should be given , under proper and equitable restrictions , to tenants for life , and to boards or corporations whose powers are restricted by law , such as incumbents as to their glebe lands , the Provost and Follows of Trinity College , the Trustees of Erasmus Smith , the Board of Education , and the Trustees of Sir P . Dunne ' s and "Wilson ' s Hospitals .

      Again : — Looking generally through Ireland , we believe that the larger proportion ofthelandis occupied by tenants-at-will . There has been of late years , from various causes , an indisposition in many landlords to grant leases ; anil it appears from the evidence that in some cases , where the landlord is willing , the tenants decline to take them out , influenced , to a certain degree , by the high stamp duty . Again : — The uncertainty of tenure is , however , constantly . referred to as a pressing grievance by all classes of tenants . It is said to paralyze all exertion , and to place a fatal impediment in the way of improvement .

      From the above extracts we learn that the uncertainty of tenure places the public tranquillity in jeopardy , paralyses national industry , and limits that supply of produce which would otherwise render us indcpendent * pf all foreign aid ; and yet the present " abuse" isto be allowed to remain for the maintenance of theexistingrightsof landlords ! It is somewhat refreshing , however , that in the recommendation of the commissioners to give extended rights to tenants at will , we recognise a side-blow at the law of primogeniture , the master evil under which the country suffers ; a blow which we trust will be followed up by the total destruction of tho system . In speaking of tenure , we may safely aver that certainty of tenurethat is , a lease for ever at a corn rent , would render all minor , considerations unimportant .

      Improvements would then go on ; farm-houses- would then be built by the tenants ; the increased value of land consequent upon the application of increased labour would lead to the destruction of the consolidation system ; the recovery of rent would bo a thing achieved without distress or ejectment ; agency could be effected without trouble ; the sale of estates would be of more daily occurrence in consequence of the improved price offered for them by small holders ; agricultural instruction would become a necessary ingredient in national education ; emigration would be a thing not thought of ; waste lands would be improved as if by magic ; the labourers * condition would keep pace with that improvement ; countycess would be a burden easily borne ; agrarian outrages would cease , and tho occupation of the Commissioners of Public Works would be gone .

      The Condition-of-Ireland question being involved in the recent inquiry , we prefer waiting for tho appendix , whereby we shall beput in possession of the evidence of 1 , 100 witnesses , we presume of different classes , to offering a conclusive opinion on the mere skeleton with which wo have been furnished by the commissioners : therefore , for the present , we shall content ourselves with directing attention to such extracts as we have selected and arranged under their respective heads , which fully confirm that fai , ^ ful view that we have ever taken of this monster question . May we . venture a hope that parties of all shades of politics will join in rescuing the Irish people from that state of degradation , wretchedness , and poverty to which the non-performance of the duties of their natural protectors has brought them ?

      It is a subject to the consideration of which we shall bring our minds without anger or exasperation in the hope that suggestions and comments may have the greater weight on those who will be called on to legislate upon the subject . " It is impossible , however , to review the whole queston without feelings of the most intense anxiety and doubt—anxiety for the sufferers ; and doubt lest landlords and Malthusians should unite for the maintenance of '' abuses" long cherished by the one party as the means of

      maintaining existing rights ; and profitable to the other for the dependency that it entails . In another part of our paper will be found selections from the different heads under which the report is presented , and to them we bog to direct the especial attention of tho reader—especially to that portion which gives tho preference to spado husbandry , and declares the growing desire for agricultural instruction . It is to the time at which this report is presented , and to the resolution of the Prime Minister , rather than to its contents , that we attach importance .

      . The Legality Of Letter-Opening.' The R...

      . THE LEGALITY OF LETTER-OPENING . ' The revelations made by Mr . Dukc < habb , of the infamies of the Post-office > are likely to lead to a far different result to that anticipated by the Government , when the subject was first mooted . The position ol " supercilious silence , " at first assumed by the Home Secretary , was evidently dictated by r . feeling that "the House" would extend the mantle of shelter over the Executive , and screen the officials in the performance of what is termed'' an odioushut necessary duty . " In this , however , the Whig renegade " reckoned withouthishost "; forthefactwas , thatnine-tenthsof " the

      House" itself were unaware of the existence even of such an " odious power ; " and the natural surprise and indignation felt at the exposure made by Mr . Duncombe hurried Hon . Members into a course of procedure which drove the Government from its original intention of setting Mi * . Duncombe and public feeling at defiance . Sir James Graham had to come down from the high perch of " official responsibility" on to the ground of " inquiry ; " and though he and his comrogucs managed that the inquiry should be a secret one , yet the granting of even that much was a virtual defeat—a defeat that is sure to

      lead ultimately to the entire suppression of the " odious" practice . The inquiry that Sir James Graham was thus obliged to concede to the wounded feeling of "the House , " was not the only one that has resulted from Mr . Duncombe ' s labours . The facts that ho has detailed before the face of the country have set the " gentlemen of the long robe" at work : and their "inquiries" are somewhat different in nature to those which engaged the attention of the secret committee-men . They heard it alleged and admitted that the practice had existed for a long period

      of time ; and that it had been in extensive vse , Their attention , therefore , has been directed to the ascertaining of the AUTHORITY , for the practice ; whether there is any legal right for the Home Minister to stop , detain , or open letters ; whether he can legally issue a warrant for any such purpose ; or whether it is not a practice that has existed without authority , and been persevered in to our own times , because unquestioned : and it is more than likely that the inquiries of these gentlemen will lead to the questioning of the assumed power before the Judges op Law and dispensers of Justice .

      hi the course of the debate on Friday night last Mr . W . H . Watso . v , Member for KJnsale , said : — When the question was first agitated , lie ( llr . Watson ' called upon the Government to say on what law they rested their claim to search letters passing through the Post-offlce , they being the carriers of those letters ; but he received no information upon the subject . The Right Hon . Gentleman , the Home Secretary , referred to the statute of Queen Anne and that of her present Majesty ; but , according to the report of the Lords' Committee , the Secretary of State could not from this source make out that he derived any right upon the subject . The latter statute he ( Mr . Watson ) had before him , and the Act ( 1 Victoria , c . 36 ) merely stated , that whoever should open or wilfully detain a letter in the Post-office should be guilty of a misdemeanour , adding a proviso that this

      should not extend to the opening or detaining a letter m obedience to a warrant from the Secretary of State . But , according to the Lords' report , the right of the Secretary of State to issue such a warrant depended entirely upon the common law , and there was no right whatever given by this statute . Now , he ( Mr . Watson ) had taken some pains to examine , the authorities , and look into the law upon thesubject , buthe couldlind no authority in any law-book whatever for the right of a Secretary of State to open a letter at the Post-office ; in no text-book , and in no' reports whatever , could he discover anything of the sort . "What was the right claimed and exercised ? It was not merely to seize and detain letters , but to open those letters , seal them up again , and then send them on to the parties ; not to take the bold measure of seizing and keeping an individual ' s papers for public reasons , but to read his letters and take copies of them , and copies of the seals , in their passage to Wm . ( Hear . ) This

      was a great constitutional question . ( Cheers . ) To talk of investigating the subject without inquiring into the law under which they lived was really entering into no inquiry at all , the subject being the right of the Secretary of State by law to examine in the Post-office the letters of the public at large , and letters addrusseu to Members of the House . He ( Mr . Watson ) said that there was no such right ; and that was a question which must ultimately be determined . ( Hear , hear . ) The Hon . Member for Bute ( the Hon . James Stuart Wortley ) had been pleased to ask on the previous night why was not information laid before the House , and evidence adduced , by those who com . plained ? Why , where was the evidence to be obtained ? What letters had been opened was known only to the Secvetary of State and his subordinates . How could evidence be produced by the Hon . Member for Finsbury , except that lie had heard certain things , and thought them probable and believed them ? The Government audits subordinates

      alone had the information . ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . Friend the Member for Weymouth ( Mr . G . W . Hope ) had said that this question ought not to be discussed in the House , but ill tllO Queen ' 8 Bench , or in some oilier court ; and some other Hon . Members appeared to hold the same view . He ( Mr . Watson ) must state , in the face of the House , that if the inquiry did not take place in Parliament it could take place nowhere . How could it take place in the Queen ' s Bench 1 How could it be proved that letters had been opened ? Were the subordinates of , the Post-office to be called < No one could prove the fact ; the mouth of the Secretary of State himself was closed . According to the decision of Lord Tenterden , no officer could be examined in matters relating to the public affairs . How , then , was any individual to » go into a court of law to try the question of right ? ( Hear , hear . ) It was possible , if the Government would

      admit what letters were opened , but not otherwise ; and if they really desired to have the question determined , they had ohly ' to avow that a particular officer opened a letter belonging to the Hon . Member for Finsbury , and let him take proceedings at law against that person , and then justify under this pretended right . ( Hear , hear . ) Butuntil he ( Mr . Watson ) heard some authority cited , he would maintain that the whole system of opening letters at the Post-office was illegal . ( Hear , hear . ) This subject was very closely connected with what was at one time a great constitutional question—the right of the Secretary of State to issue General Warrants to seize papers ; and these , which were declared to be illegal in the case of Wilkes , had existed in the time of Elizabeth , in the period of the Commonwealth , and under the second Charles , and from the revolution downwards . That claim was very

      analogous to the present . ( Hear , hear . ) There were two cases to which he would particularly call the attention of the House . One was the case of the editor and printer of the North Briton . The Secretary of State issued a warrant to seize all his papers ; the validity of that warrant was tried , and the jury gave very large damages against the persons concerned in issuing the warrant . And what did the Chief Justice say upon that occasion ? He spoke as follows : — "A warrant was granted by lord Halifax , the Secretary of State , directing a messenger to apprehend and seize the printer and publisher of a paper called the North Briton , without any information . or charge laid before the Secretary of State previous to Ids granting the warrant : " whereas every lawyer know that no warrant to arrest a person and examine his house was good without information duly

      laid , and the warrant itself stating tho offence upon the face of it . " The Chief Justice then proceeded to state that tho small injury done to the plaintiff , or the ineonsjderablencss ofhis station , were not material to the question of right ; of course the same arbitrary power could have been claimed over all the King ' s subjects , violating Magna Charta , and destroying the liberties of the people . Tho King ' s counsel of that day and the solicitor of the Treasury endeavoured to maintain tho legality of that warrant - , but his lordship said , —* ' To enter a house by a nameless warrant , in order to . seize there , is worse than the Spanish Inquisition , " That was not the speech of a politicalpartisan in that house , or on the hustings , but the judicial opinion of a Chief Justice . And ho added , — " It would be a law under which no Englishman would wish to live an hour . It was a most daring public attack made

      upon the liberty of the subject . " ( Cheers . ) Really there seemed to be very little difference between issuing a warrant to seize the papers of " the editor and printer of the North Briton" and issuing a warrant to examine , read , and copy letters . ( Hear . ) But Mr , Entick ' s case in the State Trials , vol . 19 , came still nearer to the present . A special verdict was found in that case , in reference to the warrant issued against Mr . Entick , and the case was very elaboratel y argued ; tho judgment of the Chief Justice affected the present case considerably . His lordship was pressed by a variety of arguments , and among others by this , that it had been a usage continued for a long period . " It began at the Revolution , " said his lordship , " and is too modem to be law . The common law does not begin with the Revolution . " " The warrant , ' / ' he added , "was an execution in the

      first instance , without previous information , or hearing of the plaintiff—a power claimed by no other magistrate whatsoever , Chief Justice Scroggs excepted , " ( Cheers . ) " It was argued that if the Secretary of State had power , to commit in treason , he hath , it in lesser crimes . This I deny . " Justice "Msby Sftid ; " He is only a conservator of the peace . There is no law , and less justice , to justify tho defendants in what they have done ; if there was it would destroy all comfort in society , for papers areoften the dearest property that a man can have . " ( Cheers . ) If such a right as was claimed in this case really existed , to , examine and copy letters passing through the Post-office would not some instance of it , in some period , be found in the law books ? It was impossible to suppose that it was law if it could be found sanctioned by no authority . ( Hear , hear . ) There was nothing

      but tho practice from the llevolutaon ; ana what was the value of that ? It was only a continuance of illegal acts ; it was only ao many Secretaries of State , from year to year , issuing warrants which were illegal ; and a continuance of illegal acts would not constitute a legal right . In Money ' s case , the argument from usage was urged in vain ; In reference to General Warrants , . Mr . Justice Yates said— " If you shew me a usage from the foundation of Rome , it will not legalise such a practice as tins . " ( Hear , hear . ) A usage from the creation of tile world for Secretaries of State to open letters in the Post-office would not malie the practice legal . ( Cheers . ) And what sort of warrants were these ? Warrants must be founded on information , and tho offence stated on the face of them . Where was the information ? How did the Secretary of State take it ? Was he able to administer an oath to the party ? Certainly not . Tho warrants , thereforewere

      , illegal . ( Hear , hear . ) It was true they were referred to in those Ac ts of Parliament ; but was it intended by the Acts to confer upon the Secretary of State the right to issue them ? Certainly not . They merely relieved the Postoffice authorities from penalties in acting under bis warrants to detain letters , but conferred no right to u ; : en letters—though the former was nearl y as bad as the latter . ( Hear , hear , ) Upon ' a great question Uba tb ' it was of the deepest importance to the country to know what was the state of the law ; and he invited the Solicitor-General to state , in the face of the House and of the country , upon what authority and what grounds of liW he justified tho Secretary of State in examining letters at the Post-office . It was not of tho slightest , avail to refer to usage ; for if there was really no legal authority for the practice , the thing was utterly and entirely illegal . ( Cheers . ) .

      . The Legality Of Letter-Opening.' The R...

      HeWtuen , the whole practice is called in questwuV , ' and called in question , too , in a manner that must secure for the practice a legal answer , if it is to be preserved . The reasoning of Mr . VYatson seems to us to be exceedingly strong . The point he puts , as to the inability of the Secretary of State to administer an oath , and consequently to receive an information on which to ground a warrant , and the consequent inability to issue such warrant , seems to us to be conclusive . If the reasoning of Mr . Watson be sound , it turns out that the practice , though so long in vogue , and so extensively used , is utterly and entirely illegal ! To us such seems to be the only conclusion to which the legal gentlemen can come ; unless , indeed , a far better answer can be given to Mr . Watson than the Solicitor-General vouchsafed on Friday night last . The reader will have seen that Mr . Watso . v " invited" the Solicitoh-Genekai . to the contest ; and having been so hardly pressed

      "in the face of the House and the country , he could not but attempt to reply , which he ' did in manner following : — The Hon . and Learned Member for Kinsale said this was like the case of general warrants , and his Hon . _ and learned Friend bad carefully searched the authorities , and come down armed with the opinions of judges on the question of general warrants ; and he said those opinions were conclusive , and that this kind of warrant cau no more stand good than general warrants . Did his Hon . and Learned Friend know the history of general warrants 1 He ( the Solicitor-general ) thought not ; for if his Hon . and 'Learned Friend had known that history , he would have felt bound to tell the House that general warrants existed by Act of Parliament till the year 1604 ; that in 1601 the

      Act , on which their legality was founded , expired , and that consequently after that year there was no statute to empower the Secretaries of State to issue them ; but that , nevertheless , they were issued by successive Secretaries of State , till the year 17 G 3 , when in the case which the industry ofhis Hon . and Learned Friend had discovered general wan-ants were pronounced illegal . This was an instance how easy it was for an ingenious lawyer to produce the opinion of judges , and declare confidently what was the law , so as to persuade the House that he had made out a triumphant case . His Hon . and Learned Friend said , that the committee of the House of Lords had stated , in their report , that this power was not conferred by any statute . It certainly was so stated in thatreport ; but that was not all that was said . ( Hear . ) His Hon . and Learned Friend

      selected a passage from the report , and read that , and omitted the reasoning on which it was founded . It was true that the report said that the act of AnnO gave no power to the Secretary of State to detain or open letters , but if his Hon . and Learned Friend had looked to the two lines before that passage , he would have found this statement . — " The terms on whieh the provisions of the 9 th Anne , cap . 10 , upon this subject , are enacted , can only be explained upon the supposition that this power was , at the time , fully recognised " ( hear , bear ); and then the sentence went on , " for that Act gives no power to the Secretary of State to detain or open letters , but prohibits others from doing so , except by an express warrant and writing under the hand of the Principal Secretary , for every such opening or . detaining . " Therefore , his Hon . and Learned

      Friend had suppressed these two lines , and thereby induced the House to believe that the Committee of the House of Lords had made a general declaration that , the power of detaining and opening letters was not autho « vized by statute at all . Then his Hon , and Learned Friend said that there were no authorities in the books sanctioning this practice . Sow , he ( the Solicitor-General ) wondered that it had not occurred to his Hon . and Learned Friend that as the power was exercised in secret , it was not very likely that there should be any authority respecting it on the books . If that had occurred to his Hon . ' and Learned Friend , it would have saved much valuable time , which he might have devoted to more important objects . But his Hon . and Learned Friend said tllttt this was an illegal power , that there was

      neither statute nor common law tor it , and that , give him usage since the foundation of the world for it , nothing should convince him that the power was legal , or ought to subsist . Now , it was impossible to argue with a person who spoke in that way ; but he ( the Solicitor-General ) would hope that there were others in the House who would take a calmer view of the matter , and would agree with him , although he could not go back to the foundation of Rome , or of the world , in thinking that the researches of the committee , and the industry of the Hon . Member jfor Kendal ( Mr . Warburton ) bad clearly made out , that this power was , from early times , a part of the prerogative of the Crown . ; that the Crown was enabled thereby to detain and open suspicious letters ; that the power had been exercised from earlv times / , that it was exercised under

      the Commonwealth in 1650 ; that one reason'for the establishment of the post by Cromwell ' s Parliament was the facility which it was expected to give of detaining treasonable correspondence ; and in fact that the power was proved'to have existed in good times —( hear ); and that in the 9 th of Anne it was most distinctly recognised as residing in the principal Secretary of State . He would for one moment refer to the statute of Anne . In the 40 th section they would find it enacted , "And whereas , abuses may be committed by wilfully openmg , detaining , and delaying of letters or packets , to the great discouragement of trade , commerce , and correspondence ; for prevention thereof , be it enacted , by the authorities aforesaid , that from and after the 1 st day of June , 1711 , no person or persons shall presume wittingly , willingly , or knowingly , to open , detain ,

      or delay , or cause , procure , permit , or suffer to be opened . 1 etained , or delayed , any letter or letters , packet or packets , after the same is or shall be delivered into the general or other post-office , or into the hands of any person or persons employed for the receiving or convoying post letters , and before delivery to the persons to whom they are directed , or for their use , except by an express warrant in writing ' , under the hand of one Of the principal Secretaries of State , for every such opening , detaining , or delaying . " "Sow , in the present reign , all the Post-office acts had been repealed and consolidated into one act . In sec . 41 of the 9 th of Anne , cap . 10 , the oath which the Post-Master-Gonoral and other officers of the Post-office take , was enacted . The Consolidating Act of the 1 st Victoria , cap . 33 , substituted a declaration in these

      terms : — " I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not wittingly or willingly open or delay , or cause or suffer to be opened or delayed , contrary to my duty , any letter or anything sent by the post which shall come into my hands or custody by reason of my employment relating to the Post-office , except by the consent of the persons or persons to whom the same shall be directed , or by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State . " This exception , it was to be observed , was copied from the exception in the oath enacted by the statute of Anne . This , then , being the state of the case , he did not understand the Hon . member for Shrewsbury ( Mr . D'Israeli ) when he said that no power was conferred on the Secretary of $ tate , by statute , to open letters . The Hon . Gentleman said that the object of the Acts of Parliament was to prevent any clerk or sub-agent of the Post-office , from opening or detaining any letter , but that it was never intended to give

      any power to the Secretary of State to open letters . But , if not , why should the Legislature have introduced any mention of the warrant of the Secretary of State ? Because , if the object was to prevent any clerk or subordinate person from opening or detaining letters , it would have been enough to say so , ( Hear , hear , ) Why , otherwise , should words of exception be introduced at all ? The fact was , that the exception here proved the rule ; and it was effectual to shew that the Secretary of State had that power . What , then , was the result ! Why , this—which he humbly tendered to the House , and which he ventured to declare , as his deliberate opinion—that this being a power whieh was exercised at common law , and before any of the statutes to which reference had been made , those statutes did not confer it , because the power existed when they were passed , but that they recognized it , and therefore that the power was a legal power , being so recognized and sanctioned . ( Hear , hear . )

      Now here the Solicitor General shirh the main question . He makes out what at first sight appears to be a plausible case for the users of the power : but what would he be worth , as a lawyer , if he could not do that ? Men whose trade it is to

      •»» v ** v ww ** jrjM **** . , mv . * vm vugvilj and " Who , right or wrong , plead still for gold , " are never at a loss for words and sophistries to supply the want of reasons and arguments . Such appears to us to he the case with the Solicitor-General . He was " invited" to show how the Secretary of State could legally issue a warrant for stopping , detaining , and opening letters ; how he could take the "information" necessary whereon to ground such warrant ; Aow he could administer an oatli to the party tendering such information—as all "informations" to be legal , must be on oath : the S olicitor-Gexeral was " invited" to show how all this could be done ; and he never even glanced at the points at all Ho took his stand on the usage ; and from that he argued the legality . " The practice , " says he , " has existed ; it does exist ; it has been recognised and sanctioned ; and , therefore it it legal , " Such is , in brief the argument of the second law-adviser of the Crown ,

      Mr . Watson had anticipated all this . He had argued that if the practice had not a legal foundation ; that if there did not exist AUTHORITY for it ; that if the Secretary of State could not legally issue his warrant for such a purpose , all the wane in the world would not justify the act . And so it appears to us . As for the fact relied on by the Solicitor -General , that because the practice was exercised in secret , therefore all the law-books were silent on . the point ; WO opine that it proves too much . Is it to be supposed that if the power was known to exist , and to be conferred by law , and accordant with constitutional principles , that some of the law authorities would not have even hinted at it , and " recognised" it , by

      shewing that it existed for wise and good purposes ? When Blackstone wrote his Commentaries , and defined the nature and the number of the different warrants that the officers of State and the Magistrates can issue would he not have spoken of the power residing in tho Secretary of State to detain and open , letters , had he been aware that such a , power legally existed ? And if none of our great constitutional writers over advert to such power as one known to tho constitution , is it not apparent that the secret exercise of it has hitherto prevented its being called in question ? It has existed ; it has been " recognised ; " . but so were General Warrants both in " use" and " recognised" from

      . The Legality Of Letter-Opening.' The R...

      1601 to 1703 , until : -their validity was contested and the decision of the Judges obtained agar t them . Usage did not avail in that case , thon h General Wan-ants had once an Act . od " a ' i'liame existence ; it would hardly be likely to avail in th * case of letter-opening , where no such ACTaomrr c ' be shewn to have ever existed for the " otlin " >> practice , nor anything but mage to justify it n 1 an implied " recognition" in the statute of Anne '

      The SouciTOn-GENERAL did not accept the m "invitation" of Mr . Watsox ; he did not profess S willingness to lay the warrant on the table of "tT House , " that Mr . Duncombe might take it into th * Court of Queen's Benchj and there trtj Ug Va jy . The Solicitor-General did not accept this challen ' H % , wc are left to infer : and we mistake muelfjf the general inference be not , that he dare not ' n will , however , be Mr . Duscombe ' s business io for him to do it . As Mr . Watso . v said , ( j * is a great constitutional question , it ' , i to be thoroughly tried . If there be no Acmowtr f the " odious" practice , how greatly Indebted to U * Duscombe , for exposing and resisting the unjust and

      illegal assumption of power , will En glishmen ' general be ! What a " service to the State" will I not have rendered ! He will have secured for hjn , self a niche in the temple of fame ! He will rank withPi'M and Hamt-ues , and the other glories of tjio land , who shine resplendent in history for having resisted arbitrary power . To a full t rial of the que * tion wc invite him , satisfied that to the uttermo ** the people will sustain him . Let him take the ease into the Courts , before tho Judges , the momen t ' lie gets into a position to bo able to do so . Convict the Government tiere , of having acted illegall y , and a Successful MOW would be struck at the ' ' odious " practice ; a blow from which the practice could

      never recover . We understand that Mr . Duscombe ' s motion , fo bringing the Post-office officials to the Bar of "the House , " is delayed by the forms of the House . It was expected , that , as it affected thcj > m < £ to ;« s of the Members , it would have taken precedence on Tuesday . It turns out , however , that it had to abide by "coal-pit law "— "first come , first served . " Mj Dunco-jbe ' s motion is waiting its '' turn "

      553 T" Since the above was in type , we have learnt that it is likely Mr . Dukcombe ' s motion will come onto-iuoirc-w night ( Friday ) , when lie is to move it as an amendment on the proposition that " tie House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means . " We shall give the debate in . i later edition , in time for Saturday morning ' s mails .

      Lord John Russell On The Employ* Ment Of...

      LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON THE EMPLOY * MENT OF SPIES . In the course of the debate on the Post-office Iniquities , on Friday night List , Lord John Russeu took occasion to sing his own praises as a very selfdenying Minister of State . His words wore : — - We all know very well that , a great many years ago , when Lord Sidmouth held office , that statesman thought it was a fair and legitimate means of maintaining the public peace to employ spies . ( Ileal-, hear . ) Mj opinion is , that the spies so employed were often th & cau « of the commotions and tumults they were employed to

      detect . ( Cheers . ) My opinion is , that persons were convicted and punished for offences committed at the instigation of those parties . ( Continued cheers . ) I consider the . employment of spies not onlj objectionable , but hig % dangerous , and contrary to the spirit of the constitution of a free country . ( Loud cheers . ) But arc you prepared to say—if you determine that letters shall not be opened in the Post-office—that there shall not again be the employment of spies \ ( Hear , hear . ) I take a view of that subject which leads me to think that spies ought not to lie employed . _ ( Cheers . ) And when a person of violent po . litical opinions , a Chartist , who was in the counsel of

      those who at the time I refer to were called physical force Chartists , offered me his services with the view of detecting them , 1 refused at once his offer . ( Loud cheers . ) I believe , sir , that the employment of spies does not at present exist . But you have no sanction by law to that policy ; you have no declaration on the part of this House whieh secures you against the employment of spies for the future . ( Hear , hear . ) That is a subject worthy of consideration . The secret service money is employed by the Secretary of State for that which he believes is the service Of the State . And if you determine that there shall bem

      opening Of letters m the Post-office , can you be securecan you rely upon it—that the Right Hon . the Secretary of State , anxious for the preservation of the public t .- « uquillity , and feeling himself responsible for the preservation of that tranquiinty , will not have recourse to that which I think is far more objectionable than the opening of letters in the Post-office , namely , the employment of spies ? ( Loud cheers . ) The employment of spies is a most objectionable proceeding , for the spy frequently instigates his victim to the commission of the crime he never thought of committing , andforwhichhe afterwards suffers punishment .

      On the danger and wickedness of employing SPIES , we are not about to differ from the Noble Lord . On that head we have opinions quite as decided as his own , and perhaps a great deal more so . But while we shall not quarrel with the l « u Home Secretary for his denunciation of the spy-system in general , we shall take exception to the inference he intended to be drawn from his statements , that h had never resorted to the infamous practice . He makes a great merit of having "declined '' the " oJmd services of the " violent Chartist . " We remember that he did so at the time such " offer '

      was made : but though he did "decline" such " offer , " he did not " decline" the services of Ms otm spies who were actively at work at that very time Lord John " declined" the " offer" made to him , and boasted of it , and boasts of it again : but he did not decline the services of Hahuisox at Bradford and Leeds , the scoundrel who received £ 80 in a few weeks from the chief-constable of Bradford , for procuring the conviction and punishment of parties for offences committed at his instigation ! Lord Joror , when he uttered his unseemly boast , had surely not hoard the statement of Hr , James Stuart Wortlet ,

      only the night before , who told "tho House" that he had drawn the fact of the amount of money paid to the SPY from his own mouth in open court ! Lord John did not "decline" the services of one of the Mozelets of Leeds , who was "instigating" to " physical force outbreaks" at the time that he was in the pay of the Leeds Police , £ 72 having been set apart by the Watch Committee for that purpose . Lord Jons did not "decline" the services of the entrappcrs of Jobs Frost , who concocted their hellish plans in the back parlour of a certain " moral force" shop in the

      Strand , and who hurried a quiet and inoffensive man to destruction . Lord John did not "decline " the services of the instigator of poor Hoiberby and Clayton at Sheffield , who got his victims " punished " so severely , that death humanely released them fros * Lord John ' s prison-torture ! Lord Jons did not "decline" the services of atrocious miscreants on those occasion's ; and his doing so in the ease where the " offer" was made to him , was only because he , had his own spies , perfoiining his own work to hie perfect satisfaction .

      But about this same " offer , " and tho party so " offering . " We believe the fact tb be as stated , and have before published it in the Star . At the time that Lord John's own , spies had " instigated" to " physical-force" outbreaks , and had " induced the commission of crimes , " Pbikr Hoey and Joseph Crahtree , ofBarnsley , were " convicted" of having attended a meeting in that town , at which they had taken no part whatever . But for such bare attendanccthey were sentenced to two years' imprisonment each ,. The sentence was a most savage and inhuman one . Peter Hoey was , and is , a respectable , quiet , good-dispoacd subject . lie was known to Cap « tain Wood of Sandal , near Wakefield , who manifested

      a great interest in his fate , and used all the influence he could bring to bear to obtain a remission of tho monstrous sentence . Of course * tho application had to be made on behalf of both parties , IIoei and Crabtree . Mr . Gully , then M . P ., waited personally on Lord John , at the Home-office , and enforced the application on Lord John ' s attention . As his answer , Lord Jons } put into Mr . Gully ' s hands a lctterthathe had received from C-habtree , offering that , if released from imprisonment , hewould " peach , "andtellallhe knew of the intentions of the "physical force" Chartists . God knew that all he had to tell , Lord Jon knew well enough before ; for his own spies had not been idle in INSTIGATING ! hut the ' « offor" * a »

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), March 1, 1845, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_01031845/page/4/