On this page

• Departments (2)
  • 
  • 
• Text (5)

  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.

  • 

    "8 - THE NORTHERN STAR. - February 22, 1...

  • 

    \ mm htttm$tmt.

  • 

    BOW-STREET, -.TrasiMY.—l.vnujiAS- Coxdfc...

  • 

    Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of 17, Great """j""',, ' street, Haymarket, in the City.of Westmins ter, ^

  • 

    . Office in the same Street and Parish, ...

• 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.

    ; Iiousf, Of Commons, Mondat, Feb. 17. ....

    ^ ( Continued from our seventh page . J prehensive nature , have , in conjunction with other information , induced your committee to believe that diplomatic correspondence , when posted mordinary course , incurred in this countrv and in the other great states of Europe nearly equal risk of inspection . How long similar warrants continued , and when they were finally recalled , your committee have no information , nor do they think it their duty to report as to any practise which may have existed in reference to this part of the subject . " They do not think it their duty to answer this charge . But of this they are satisfied , that no such warrants or practices now exist ; and that public as well as private correspondence , foreign as well as domestic , passing through the office in reetdar course , now enjoys complete

    security , subject only to the contingency of a Secretary of State ' s warrant , dir ected for special r easons against a particular letter or letters . "Certain -warrants were laid before your committee "—these are the warrants in the time of Eox and Lord Carmarthen ; and we are left to guess when these warrants were recalled , or whether they were in existence twenty years before the making of the report , or twenty hours . But what a quibble is here for we find in the Lords' report what makes this sentence most important . " It appears , " says the Lords' committee , " to have for a long period of time , and under many successive Administrations , heen an established practice that the foreign correspondence offoreign Ministers , passing through the General

    Postoffice , should be sent to a department of the Foreignoffice before the forwarding of such correspondence according to its address . Tiie Postmaster-General having had his attention called to thc fact that there was no sufficient authority for the practice , has since June discontinued it altogether . " Only " since June ! " the very time that 1 made my statement to tiie House . ( Cheers . ) Why , this report ought to put our committee to the blush when they read that paragraph . ( Hear , hear . ) It is an unworthy quibble , that no such practices " now exist ; " it is most disingenuous : ( Hear . ) But what must foreign powers nowthinkof / this system of your opening their letters ? Why , suppose they should take the trouble to read what occurred in the House of Lords some years back ,

    when , under the authority of a committee appointed by both Houses of Parliament , the letters of persons suspected of treason were opened . What happened then , inlGH , withregardtotheVenetian Ambassador , who complained of his letters being opened ? Ton find it on the Lords' Journals on the 12 th of Jfttveuiher , 1 G 41 : — "Thc Lord Keeper signified to the House , 'that the Venetian Ambassador made a complaint to the Lords of ihe Council , that the dispatches which were sent to him this week were opened , and the seal of the state of Venice broken open by the Parliament , whereby he accounts himself much grieved with it , and for tills he hath retired himself from the public affairs , as an ambassador between this kingdom and that

    state until he receives further commands from his masters . ' Then was read a paper , being a translation out of Italian , delivered from the Venetian Ambassador . The contents was this , viz ., 'Most noble Lords , the correspondency betwixt princes there hath always been the most immediate ways of a ' true inter est of maintaining of estates , and of continuance of commerce to thc benefit and increase of the commonwealth . To cultivate this , the most great lung hath always used thc most industry ; and to facilitate it , they have introduced the expedition of ambassadors to confirm it betwixt the one and the other kingdom . In this there hath been all respect rendered to all princes even in all times , hot only having made the large prerogatives and liberties , * and the

    very same ( 1 may say ) the very princes and patrons possessing the same dominions amongst the remark able and equally necessary ; and that by which wc may receive letters , and send from the proper prince , and whatsoever person , without any interruption , which is the most principal part of an ambassador ; which practice , most noble sire , is not the laws of our nation alone , but universal , and hath been maintained and inviolated of thc King and the public , and of all Christian Governments , no less than amongst the most barbarous . 1 nevertheless cannot say but that 1 have enjoyed in this great court tliat just respect , until the last letters were opened which came irom France to me directed , although they were restored by my Lord Feilding and Sir Henry

    Vane , upon whose honour they secured me that it was a simple error , aud not willingly committed , © which I believed ; yet could not persuade myself that the Government of England , so noble and generous , should have so inferior a mind as to open the letters of an ambassador , and by this means to violate xhe laws , " and to give an example to the world so damnable , and of so little respect towards the Minister of thc Serenissima Respublica , which , after so many ages , hath given a sincere testimony of affection and esteem to this Crown . So now new experience , with my mortification , hath given testimony of the contrary being yesterday all the letters were opened coming from ] Venice , Antwerpe , and other countries , and the very letters writ unto me from

    the Serenissima Respublica , the regal seal being broken , and tlie commission sent from my lords being published , and many of my own letters being taken . " The Lords thought the ambassador had very properly designatedit , a "danmaWeexample "—( cheers ) , and they agreed that satisfaction should be made to im , and to the state of Venice , and that the action should be disavowed , " as tending to the breach of public faith , and the law of nations . " Why , Sir , it would serve us quite right , if every one of those great Bowers , whose letters we have opened , were to call lor an apology ; and wc should be obliged to make it . I say it has been a most infamous system , and is a disgrace to England . { Loud cheers . ) I am glad to find that it does "not exist now , ' though it only

    ceased existing in June last . ( Hear , hear . ) But now we come rather nearer home . I stated that a roving commission was sent into the manufacturing districts in 1842 for the purpose of opening letters , and I believe I stated , "for the purpose of seeing who was writing to whom . " ^ What do the committee say about that?— "During the outbreak in the aianufacturing and mining districts , which took place in August , 1812 , in the week of the greatest anxiety , a clerk was sent down from the London Post-office , with directions ,, under the authority of a Secretary of State's warrant , to open the letters of six parties named therein , all taking a prominent part in the disturbances of that period . In the same week the the same clerk was directed , under authority of two

    other such warrants , to open the letters often other persons named , and a fortnight later to open the letters of one other person ; making seventeen in all . Meet of the persons whose letters were ordered on this occasion to be opened were indicted , and many both indicted and convicted , More the special commission appointed to try the parties concerned in those disturbances . With one exception , these warrants were issued between the ISth and 2 otli of August , 1813 , and they were all cancelled on the 14 th of October . " What has become of that one exception I do not know ; perhaps that is in force at the present moment . Hut it goes on , "It is these facts , probably , that have given rise to the report of a commission or commissions

    having visited the manufacturing districts charged with a general authority to open and inspect letters . " I think it is just "probable . " ( A laugh . ) They call my statement " a report" for which there is no foundation ; a sort of vague rumour ; as if I had dreamt it--as if this was not a roving commission . Why , they do not say the clerk was sent to a par ticular town , bntto " thc manufacturing and mining districts , " for the purpose of opening letters . I said before , that the Right Hon . Gentleman had exercised this power in an unusual manner ; and I ask thc House , can they produce , in the whole annals of this iniquitous letter-opening system , - one single precedent of this species of roving commission ? ( Hear , hear . ) Can you produce any precedent of persons

    heing sent into the manufacturing district , or any district , for the purpose of opening hitters in this manner ? I believe you cannot . I believe the practice is totally illegal—sending a man down from the Post-office to open the letters of So-and-so , and sec who is writing to whom . ( A laugh . ) What is thc consequence ? They not only open thelettersof these individuals , but they see to whom they are -writing elsewhere , and orders arc then given to open the letters of those persons . I am not at all satisfied that they have not been opening other people ' s letters besides those six . Give me a committee , " and I think you will find that the letters of others have been opened , arising out of this clerk ' s commission into the country . ( Hear , hem-. ) It is rather vague

    "to open the letters of six parties named therein . Are they letters written or received ? How are you to ascertain a man ' s handwriting if they are letters written . Thereis gi ^ tsMlarityinhandAviting . Theclerk sees a letter ; " 0 , Mr . So-and-so has written this letter and I will open it . " After reading it he finds he had made a mistake , and says , "I thought it came from this party that I hold a warrant for , but it has not , and I find I have read a letter which I have no right to do . " What I want to know is , is there any precedent for this system ? I believe that it is novel , and invented by the Right Hon . Baronet . The report went on , — " In the autumn of 1843 , during the disturbances which took place in South Wales , two clerks were sent down from tlie post-office into the disturbed districts , with directions , under authority of a warrant from the Secretary of State ,

    one to inspect the letters of one person at a particular town , the other to inspect the letters of another person at another town : and subsequently , under authority of a different warrant , this second clerk was sent to a third town , there to inspect the letters ol a third person . In all three instances the persons whose letters were to be inspected were specifically named in the warrant . One of these warrants was in force eighteen , the other seven days . " I say this is a most dangerous power , and those persons are not the proper persons to be entrusted with it ; to have a clerk sent down in that way ! We ought to have some more satisfactory explanation with reference to this roving commission . I come now to thc last charge . I stated that my correspondence had been violatedand my letters opened . ( Hear , hear . ) Now , upon this the committee are perfectl y silent . I had enly been informed that my letters going to thc

    ; Iiousf, Of Commons, Mondat, Feb. 17. ....

    Albany had been detained for the purpose of opening . But though the committee is-silent upon it , I now will prove that my letters were ordered to be detained , inspected , and opened on the authority of the Right Hon . Baronet . ( Hear , hear , from the Opposition benches . ) Now I must say that I feel degraded in admitting this ; I think it is a degradation for any Member of the House of Commons to know and feel that he is a worthy object of suspicion to warrant the Secretary of State for the Home Department to insult him and to open his letters . ( Loud cries of Hear , hear . ) I cannot conceive a greater personal insult ( continued cheering ) ; or a greater insult to the constituency a man represents ( hear , hear )—a constituency large , enlightened ,

    and numerous ; the representative , not the nominee of a rotten borough . ( Cheers . ) It becomes , therefore , not only an insult to me , but a gross insult to the constituency I have the honour to represent . I I will go further ; if my correspondence is not to be free , I am not a fit representative . ( Cheers . ) And in the name of that constituency I again call on the Right Hon . Baronet to justify , if he ean , the opening of my letters . I know not what story he may have trumped up to this committee of the Commons , or that committee of the Lords , but I say that he owes it to me , to this House ( cheers)—and he owes it to my constituents to tell you , and to tell them , the justifi fication upon which he ordered my letters to be opened . I asked him before and he talked about my " vanourins . " I asked him again , and said , " Is it

    true ? I hardly believe it . " He said , " I must know I was asking a question which it was not consistent with his duty to answer . " Then , how stands that question between me and the Right Hon . Baronet ? If a Meniberin hisplaceasks the Right Hon . Baronet whether , in the exercise of his functions , he has opened that Member ' s letters , and he finds that tliat Secretary of State , while he has had the meannessaye , andthe baseness , to commit the act , has not had the courage to avow it . —( Great cheering . ) The Speaker . —Those observations appear to be of a _ personal nature . If the Hon . ' Member has made those observations in his placepcrsonaUy to the Right Hon . Gentleman opposite , the Hon . Gentleman no doubt will be glad of the opportunity to withdraw them .

    Mr . Dcxcombe . —Sir , I applied those observations to the Right Hon . Gentleman in his Ministerial capacity * To those observations and that language I adhere ( cheers ); so they must and shall remain . I say then , I must ask the committee why they have not referred to this subject ? I called on them specially to report upon this point , and made , I recollect , this charge before them in thc room up Stan's . They are totally and entirely silent upon it . They have not done me the same justice ( bad and small as that justicc £ is ) as they have done to the Polish gentleman . They have not even stated that there was nothing to criminate me in the correspondence opened . But they knew well if they had said that , it would have been a direct censure on the Right Hon . Baronet . That is the difficulty that his committee were placed

    in ; and I am to be sacrificed for the purpose of screening the Right Hon . Baronet . I say that this is an additional reason why another inquiry should be instituted , and I call for that inquiry , for the vindication of my own character , and in justice to my constituents . It is seldom that I have an opportunity of agreeing with the organ of the Government , commonly called the Morning Herald . ( Laughter . ) But I must , injustice to that paper , and to the editor , read to the House what I consider to be a most excellent article on the subject : —[ The article stated tliat any Cabinet , and particularly a Whig Cabinet , was branded with infamy aud dishonour if it opened the letters of a Member of Parliament . ] This is your own organ , which savs of opening the letters of a ' Membcrof

    Parliament " that nothing short of an extreme case could possibly justify it . " That is the statement of the Morning Herald . "It stamps any Cabinet , and more particularly a Whig Cabinet , with eternal infamy and dishonour to open the letters ot a Member of Parliament . " My letters have been opened , and from that you may draw what conclusion you think proper . ( Cheers and laughter . ) Except under the wan-ant of the Secretary of State , to open thcletters of a Member of Parliament is not only a misdemeanour , but a breach of privilege : because a resolution on your journal states —that it is a high breach of privilege for the letters of any member oftlus House to be opened , except by the warrant of the Secretary of State . I say that verv resolution justifies me in putting that question

    to the Right Hon . Baronet in refcrenceto my letters ; because , if he has not issued tlie warrant , other individuals had been guilty of a breach of privilege , and I shall certainly summon them to the bar of the House for a breach of privilege . ( Hear . ) I say we ought to have a committee to report whether it is expedient to continue tills practice . If there is any doubt in the House about it , there is none out of doors . ( Hear , hear . ) It becomes thc more necessary to have this report , because in Ms place in the House of Lords , the First Lord of the Admiralty ( Lord Haddington ) stated on the 25 th of June— " Your lordships will admit that this is a power which has not only existed in this country in all times , but it is one which must always exist in every country thathasa

    Government at all . " So Lord Haddington says tlierc can be no Government without this power . He is for claiming it . There would be no Government in England without this power of forgery and fraud . I say no honest Government requires this power . I say that the safety of England docs not require the protection of such means as this ; hut I do maintain that the honour of England and of Englishmen requires the total and immediate abolition of this power . ( Cheers . ) It is with these views that I now move "that a select committee be appointed , to inquire into the mode in which letters have been detained , opened , and re-scaled , at the General or at any provincial Ppst-offiee , and ahM into tho eircumstaaceB under which every warrant for that purpose has been

    issued by any Secretary of State , from the first day of January , 1810 , to the present time ; ihe said committee to report their opinion thereon to the House , and also whether it is expedient that the practice should lie continued ; that the report and evidence of the secret committee of last session relative to the Post-office be referred to the said committee . " ( The Hon . Member sat down amidst loud cheering . ) Sir JiMES Graham contended that he had done nothing in the execution of his public duty of which any public servant need to be ashamed . He denied that any effort was made by the Government to suppress the inquh-y into the proceedings of the Postoffice . He had himself declared his readiness , if released from his oath of office by his Sovereign , to

    discltse every order which he had issued in connection with the Post-office . He analysed the constitution of the committee which had examined into Mr . Buncombe ' s charges , and shewed that a majority of its members consisted of his political opponents . To that committee , without reservation , he had tendered all the information which he possessed on . the subject . If his conduct had heen base and mean , it had been brought under their consideration . Before them , at least , he had had the courage to state what he had done ; and sunposing that they were prepared to acquit him of baseness or meanness , both personally and officially , he cared not one rush if Mr . Ihincombe thought fit to condemn him either upon mere susp icionor unon information collected he knew not

    , how , and given by persons he knew not whom . He contended that the committee had made a most satisfactory report , and that it had completely followed up the instructions of the House . A similar inquiry had also been instituted in thc House of Lords , where he had been examined as to his conduct upon oath , and . both committees had acquitted Mm oi any " excess in the exercise of the prerogative of his office . Mr . Duncombe was under a gross mistake as to the abolition of what he called the " Secret-office , " at St . Martin ' s-le-grand . A secret office , connected with the Foreign Department of the Government , had existed for more than a century in the Post-office ; and he now informed the House that it had been withdrawn from the

    Postoffice , and was no longer in existence , in consequence of orders that had been issued by the Foreign-office . He denied that he had fabricated or trumped up a warrant with a false date for the openingof the letters of Mr . Mazzini ; and repeated the assertion , which he had made on a former occasion , that Lord Aberdeen had not communicated to any foreign power any portion of that gentleman ' s correspondence which could compromise the safety of a single individual . He repelled with indignation the imputation east by Mr . Duncombe on the present Government that it had assisted the Neapolitan Government in entrapping the Bandeiras and their associates , and in subsequently putting them to death , and denied that either he or his noble colleague had been guilty of anything like treachery towards those unhappy persons . He also justified Ids conduct in opening the

    letters of certain Polish refugees , and implored the House to consider what his responsibility would Lave been had any attempt , which he could have prevented , been made on thc life of the Emperor of Russia whilst on a visit in this country . He did not believe that anyfurther inquiry could be productive of any advantage . The real practical question was , whether the House would revoke the power which had been given to every Secretary of State since the reign of Queen Anne , to open private letters in case ef necessity , or whether they would continue it . If they should determine to revoke it , they had the power to do so ; but if they determined to continue it , it was impossible for any Secretary of State to exercise it with advantage to the public service , if he were called upon to declare publicly on every occasion to the House all the reasons which had induced him to

    put it in force . Mr . Siren , then rose and said—My observations shall be very short , and I hope very temperate . The Right Hon . Baronet has unequivocally admitted that the letters addressed to Mr . Mazzini were opened , aud that the substance of the infonnation derived from those letters was communicated to a foreign power " The substance of the information , " the report says ; mid the statement of the Right Hon . Baronet is almost more than confirmatory of that report . Thc Right Hon . Gentleman justifies that proceeding . This is not the time to consider whether that proceeding was just or not ; for this question is not raised by the present motion . My Hon . Friend ( Mr . T . Duncombe ) will have the opportunity oi

    ≪ ≫

    < >

    raising that question by bringing the subject ' before the House and the country oh another and a more appropr iate occasion . But there stands the broad fact—that letters of Mr . * Mazzini were opened ; that they were regularly conveyed to him after being opened is , I believe , not denied ; nor is it questioned that Mr . Mazzini was himself unaware that his correspondence had been disclosed . The . Right Hon . Baronet says that no trap had been laid , but it might have been as well ty have informed Mr . Mazzini that his letters had been opened . The decoy , if I may use such a term , not adopted by the Right Hon , Baronet , but by the Post-office , wascontinued ; andthe substance of the information obtained from Mr . Mazzini ' s letters was communicated toaforeien nower

    The committee state that "the facts of the case , so far as your committee feel themselves at liberty to disclose them , appear to be as follows . " It appears , then , there were facts that the committee did think themselves at liberty to disclose . ( Hear , hear ) . I do not mean to say that the committee of secrecy appointed under such peculiar civeumtanees wove not justified in using such a discretion ; but it is clear that all the facts they ascertained are not disclosed , —that though there has not been asuggestio falsi , a suppressio veri is admitted . ( Hear , hear . ) Now , I want to know why there is nothing said about the letters addressed to the Hon . Member for Finsbury . ( Cheers . ) The names of the two Poles were mentioned , the name of Mr . Mazzini was mentioned ;

    were those the only names specified in the House of Commons ? ( Cheers . ) The member for Finsbury , the representative of a great section of this metropolis , got up and stated in the House of Commons that his privileges as a Member of Parliament had been violated , and that his letters had been opened . ( Great cheering , from gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House principally . ) There was a statement as distinct and as specific as that which was made with respect to Mr . Mazzini . ( Cheers . ) His name was mentioned . Why have the committee said nothing about that name ? ( Cheers . ) The statement was repeated before the committee , who excluded Mr . Duncombe —( cheers ) , who brought the charge . ( Loud cheering . ) Mr . Duncombe offered to

    appear before the committee to conduct his case and to prove his accusation . The committee refused to allow him to ' conduct his case , and I believe to hear him . ( Cheers . ) Under these circumstances , it is a matter I think of legitimate curiosity , to know what is the justification on . the part of the committee-for omitting all mention of Mr . Duncombe .- ( Cheers . ) How stands the fact ? When the Right Hon . Gentleman the Secretary of State for thc Home Department was first interrogated upon the subject he refused to give any answer . . He sheltered himself behind his official pr ivileges . ( Cheers , ) When * the public clamour was raised , the Right Hon . Baronet at the head of the Government , who observed , who felt the beating of the public pulse , wisely came down to the House and said that a committee should he

    conceded , that wliieh was at first withheld . ( Cheers . ) A committee was granted . A great fact ;—the fact of all others the most important—the opening of the letters of a Member of Parliament , has not been reported on by that committee . ( Cheers . ) The charge was made . Now , I ask thc question —( cheers)—now , I ask the question ( repeated tlie Right Hon . Gentleman with great vehemence , amidst loud cheers from the Hon . Gentlemen behind him)—tell me , you who answer with regard to Mr . Mazzinitell me , you who answer with respect to the Polestell me , will you answer whether you opened the letters of Mr . Duncombe ? ( Great cheering . ) Lord Sandox rose amidst some cries of " Question . " He said , —My back was turned when the Right Hon :

    Gentleman put his question ; will he oblige me by repeating it ? . Mi-. Siieill ( with considerable vehemence ) . —It is not of the Noble Lord , it is of the Right Hon . Baronet the Secretary of State for tlie Home Department that I ask ' the question , and I repeat my interrogatory . ( Loud cheers , and cries for Sir James Graham , amidst wliieh)— , Lord Sandon resumed his scat , but the Noble Lord almost immediately rose again and proceeded to address thc House , though the noise that prevailed rendered several of his observations but . indistinctly audible . His Lordship said , tliat as far as he could understand , thc question of tlie Right Hon . Gentleman had heen addressed to tlie Right Hon . Gentleman tlie Secretary of State for the Home Department .

    ( Cheers . ) . At tlie same time , as the Right lion . Gentleman thc Secretary of State for tlie Home Department did not think it consistent with his duty ( cries of Oh , oh ! from the Opposition , and uproar ) then to answer the question , he ( Lord Sandon ) thought it then became his duty , as chairman of the secret committee that had been appointed , to make some observations . ( Continued uproar , and cries ol 'Oh !) He must take the opportunity of observing that Gentlemen placed in his ( Lord Sandon ' s ) position were placed in one of -very peculiar embarrassment ( Oh I ) The House by appointing a secret committee recognized the principle that there was something in the nature of the subject wliieh required that everything that there transpired should not be made

    known to tlie public . ( Hear , and Oh !) -. It was a committee of secrecy , and of course the members oi it , till they were released from their obligation , could not disclose the particulars of the different cases which had come before it , nor justify fully the-report which they had made . They must therefore trust to their own characters for their defence . Still he _ thought , that upon the very face of it , the report was neither evasive nor unsatisfactory . If Mr . Sheil were to put to liiin the question which he had just put to Sir J . Graham , and if he ( Lord Sandon ) were to answer it , some other Member would rise and put another question to him ; and he must therefore at once decline to gratiry such prurient curiosity . - Sir J . Graham observed that , when lie was interrogated upon tins subject last year , he had refused to answer any question respecting it , unless her

    Majesty released him from his oath of secrecy as a Privy Councillor , and the House appointed a committee to examine and report upon the whole matter . A secret committee was then appointed , in which , as he had already mentioned , there was a majority of his political opponents . There was no one fact which lie had not laid before that committee fully and in detail ; and after such a statement on his part , no fault was found by the committee with any portion of his conduct . He should now adhere to the course of proceeding which he had adopted last session , and should reply to the question of Mi " . Sheil by stating that he could not consistently with his public duty answer any further interrogatory . _ He hoped it would be seen that there was a wide distinction oetween the cases of the two foreigners aud the other cases which had been alluded to .

    Mr . Hume commended the discretion of Sir J . Graham in not replying to the interrogatory which had been put to him . Still , he must ask who it was that made this committee a secret one ? It was Sir J . Graham himself , who had , therefore , no right to throw off his own shoulders the responsibility of his own work . He thought at the time that the proceedings of the committee ought to have been public , and he now considered it to be advisable that the evidence which it took should be forthwith published . He confessed that he had always considered it derogatory to the honour of England , and to the dignity of a Minister of the Crown , that he should have become in any respect a Police Minister to the Emperor of Russia .

    Sir Johx Hanmer thoughtthat no imputation rested at present on the character of Sir James Graham ; but he had heard with some surprise Mr . Duncombc ' s statement that his letters had been submitted to investigation by the Secretary of State . He had no " prurient curiosity" respecting the evidence given before the secret committee—but it concerned him , as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of a free country , that the House of Commons should examine into that charge , and should inquire if it were true , whether the power of the Secretary of State was exercised on sufficient reasons . For those reasons would contain necessary infonnation for them whenever they came to the consideration of a question with which they must soon deal , namely , whether it . be

    desirable or not that the power of opening letters should be continued to the Secretary of State . He thought that there was sufficient ground laid for a further inquiry , either by the re-appointment of the old committee , or by the appointment of a new one , aud he should vote for such inquiry . Mr . Serjeant Munrnv was convinced , that notwithstanding the reasons which Sir James Graham had just given for his silence , the impression made on the country by that silence would be very unsatisfactory . That impression might have been avoided had he pursued the course which was adopted some years ago , when Mr . Roebuck brought forward some very serious charges against individual members of that House . At first an objection was made to the

    placing Mr . Roebuck on the committee appointed to investigate those charges '; but at last he was made chairman of it , and had gained great credit for the impartiality with which he had acted . Was it , then , fair that Mr . Duncombe , whose privileges , which were the property of the public , had been violated , should not only have been prevented from conducting his own case , but should also have been excluded from the committee-room in which the inquiry was carried on ? Because Mr . Duncombe had not been added to that committee , Sir . J . Graham was obliged to clothe himself in the mystery of office—a mystery which he thought would not be satisfactory to the country . Sir R . Peel defended tlie report of the committee

    of secresy from the remarks which had been made to its discredit , and reprobated in very strong terms the proposition of Mr . Hume , that the evidence taken before it should be forthwith published . He insisted that there had been no misconduct on the part of the executive Government in the exercise of this power of opening letters . If it was wrong to exercise such power at all , the fault was not with the executive Government , but with the Parliament which had thought fit to arm it with such an instrument . Parliament had not intrusted the executive Government with such power hastily or without due deliberation . That power was under the consideration of Parliament in 1735 , and the House of Commons of that day declared that there was no peculiar sanctity in a Member of Parliament ; for it passed a

    < >

    'resolution that . it . would not be . a breach of privilege to open a letter addressed to a member if it were done under the .. warrant of a Secretary of State . In 1745 this power was exercised b ^ Ministers as friendly to civil liberty as any which this country ever possessed . In 1837 the House was party to an Act of Parliament expressly recognizing the existence of this prerogative in the Secretary of State . Now , he contended that the House , seeing tliat it had intrusted them with such a power , would not hold any Ministers justified who , from a feeling of cowardice , should refuse to exercise it in time either of external attack or of internal disorder . The Hon . Gentleman opposite had condemned Sir J . Graham fur issuins : seventeen or eighteen of these warrants

    in August , 1842 ; but had Hon . Members forgotten the state of disturbance in which some parts of the country were at that period ? The Member for Wolverhampton at that time made a motion limiting the prorogation of Parliament to someday in the month of October , on the express ground that the country was in danger of civil confusion . The members for Manchester and for Stockport both spoke in terms of strong alarm respecting the " dire confusion " which then prevailed . Ministers at that time asked for no' extraordinary powers ; but what would Parliament have said to them if in that time of ¦ " dire confusion" they had displayed apathy and indifference ? Would not Parliament , in case of danger , have held Ministers responsible for the non-exercise of that very power which it now blamed them for exercising after

    tranquillity had been restored ? All that Ministers had done in the exercise of that power , both with respect to Mr . Mazzini and Captain Stolzman , had been laid fully and without reserve before a committee in which there wasa majority of their political opponents ; and that committee , had fully acquitted them of any abuse of that authority . In the exercise of that authority they might in critical times have made mistakes ; but what would have been their position if they had endangered the life of one man , or had compromised the safety of the nation , by shrinking from the responsibility which was imposed upon them ? He pressed , in conclusion , upon the House the propr iety of not implying suspicion of their committee , and of the Ministers whom that committee had acquitted , by subjecting . them tea second trial .

    Mr . Waruuriox justified , at considerable length , the report of the committee , of which he had been a member . In considering the question , whether it was advisable to grant to Mr . Duncombe the committee for which he had moved , he observed that his own opinion was , that the facts of the case had been communicated to the House as far as was consistent with the public good . Mr . Wakley observed that when the House considered what had passed on the present occasion , coupled with what had taken place when the subject was before the House during the last session , it would be admitted that his Hon . Colleague in the representation of Finsbury was placed in a most unfair position , for he had always exercised his

    functions , as the representative ot his constituents , in the most independent and energetic manner ; ' expressing his sentiments on all occasions with the most perfect boldness , and being thus conspicuous for the liberality of his sentiments , he was sought out by a foreigner , who , relying on His position as a Member of that House , placed a petition in his hands , wherein he complained that his letters had been opened at the Post-office , and asked for redress in the form of a petition to that House . And when the Right Hon . Baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) was applied to for information as to the truth of the facts alleged by one individual , the same Mr . Mazzini who had petitioned , he turned round on being questioned with respect to Stolzman , and said " if you will give ' notice of the sort of information you seek , I will see if

    it might not be possible for me to answer you . " A secret committee was subsequently appointed to inquire into the subject and report upon it , the result of wliieh proceeding would , he trusted , afford a lesson to the House not to act in a similar manner on a future occasion , for the whole proceeding was merely a whitewashing of the Government . ( Ilcar , hear . ) The secret select committee contented itself with mentioning the names of one or two individuals whose correspondence had been violated , and then classing the whole of the other cases which came under its knowledge in a mass , each member of the committee saying that all had been disclosed by them which it was safe or prudent to do , and intimating the danger that would result if such were published . But , his Hon .. Colleague had opened a new case for the consideration of the House . He had at first

    simply presented a petition from Mr . Mazzini , complaining that Iiis letters were opened , and praying for redress . The report of the committee made ho allusion whatever to his Hon . Colleague . He had not been called before the committee , nor had he been allowed to conduct the ease , wliieh was the direct cause of its being appointed , and which case he had brought before the notice of thc House . His lion . Colleague , however , brought a fresh allegation to tlie attention of the House ; he had told the Right lion . Baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) to his face , that he charged him with having opened his letters at the Postroffice . What did the Right Hon . Baronet say in answer to this charge ? He had replied that he was not absolved from his oath of secresy in the

    performance of his duties , and thc name ot the tyueen had been introduced in a most extraordinary and unprecedented manner by him in order to shield him from making any disclosures of his acts . ( Hear , hear . ) This course of observation was quite new to him ( Mr . Wakley . ) He had always understood by tho practice of the constitution , that the responsibilities of the Sovereign rested solely upon the Ministers according to the established maxim , " the King can do no wrong , " ( Hear , hear , ) which meant that the Crown could do nothing without the immediate agency , and consequently the entire responsibility of Ministers . By whose advice , therefore , was the Crown in the [ u-esent case induced to absolve Ministers from their oaths of secresy , if it was not by the direct counsel ol

    the Right Hon . Baronet himself ? ( Hear , hear . ) And upon whom rested thc responsibility of that proceeding , if not upon the Right Hon . Baronet ? ( Hear , li ear , ) The subterfuge was a most unworthy one . It was most highly improper ; it was most unconstitutional for thc Minister of the Crown to throw back upon the Sovereign that responsibility which was the result of his own advice—( hear , hear)—and when his lion . Colleague repeated the charge , and had asserted in terms not to be misunderstood that the Right Hon . Baronet had caused , his letters to be opened , that Right Hon . Baronet had not denied , the truth of his allegation , but had left' the matter entirely unanswered . The Right Hon . Baronet , thc First Lord of thc Treasury , had however come forward and made

    out an affected justification oi the violation of which the Right Hon . Home Secretary was accused . And what did the Right Hon . Baronet say ? Why he reminded the House that iu 1842 tlie whole country was in a state of tumult and agitation ; that sedition and disaffection were imputed to the people in many districts : that thc Government was bound to take precautions against the machinations of ill-disposed persons ; that the threats and the agitations that were manifested , and that the menaces of the masses put in motion being then made , had rendered it most necessary that every precaution should be adopted to discover and to prevent this agitation ; and that the Government consequently was justified in using the power which it

    possessed of opening letters for the purpose of so discovering what was going on . Was , then , his Hon . Colleague in communication with those whose actions and secret machinations were thus apprehended by the Government to be so dangerous ? Was his Hon . Colleague , then , endeavouring to excite the masses to move ? ( Hear , hear . ) That was the only inference which could be fairly drawn from the observations of the Right Hon . Baronet —( hear , hear ); and that was the justification which he put forth in behalf of the Right Hon . Secretary for the Home Department . ( iNo , no . ) He could only put that interpretation upon the language of thc Right Hon . Baronet . ( No , no , from the Ministerial benches . ) Yes , he put thc same construction upon it that tho House had done

    already . ( No , no . ) No—why , thc meaning of the Right Hon . Baronet was as plain as it could be . If he did not mean that , what did he mean ? ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . political colleague always tried after a high quarry . The Right Hon . Baronet , the Secretary for the Home Department , was a favourite subject witli him . Mr . Duncombe always tried thought the highest game the most attractive . He occasionally attacked the judges ; and the Right Hon . Baronet had said on a former occasion , that his Hon . colleague was justified in calling himself and other functionaries to account . Now , because his Hon . colleague had so occupied himself from time to time , was he to be subject to have his letters detained and opened , a course which the Right Hon . Baronet had der official

    stated to have been followed , un responsibilities , which neither he ( Mr . Wakley ) nor anybody el « e could discover ? What was that responsibility in which tlie Right Hon . Baronet ' s official character was so deeply implicated ? Was thc House to be told that Ministers were justified in opening letters , and when they « -ere called upon to show the responsibility under which they did so , were they to be allowed to reply by casting on an individual Member who charged them with violating his correspondence ,- the brand of being engaged in a seditious intercourse ? ( " No , no . " ) Then if this were not the case , why had his Hon . colleague ' s letters been opened ? The Right Hon . Baronet was bound , if he denied this inference , to state to the House what the grounds were which , in

    his opinion , justified his prying into his Hon . colleague ' s letters . And in this particular case , supposing that the authority under which he claimed the power of doing so were admitted , was there anything to justify him in the secresy which had been practised with respect to the opening of the letters at the Post-office ? If the law entitled the Government to open letters , it did not say that they were to lie sealed up again , and sealed in such a manner as that-no one should know they had been so opened . Buthe would not go further into thc particulars of these cases . Whether the power , when it came to be examined into , could be maintained or not , was not now thc question . ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . colleague had stated that his letters had been opened . A Membei of that House alleged in his place that Ms letters

    < >

    had been opened-by the Secretary Of State for the Home Department , and the answer of that Secretary in ' point of fact was , he could not acknowledge the truth of the allegation because he was not absolved from his oath of secresy . He said , that under these circumstances it was impossible for the public to be satisfied , It was impossible for the House , to be satisfied , and they would not do justice to their own character . —they would not be capable of fulfilling the high functions that devolved on them , if they did not insist on a full and searching inquiry intothe pointed and personal charge brought his Hon . colleague . ( Cheers . ) ' - ' . /¦ Mr . Roebuck rose to address the House , but Mr . Broxiierton moved an adjournment of the debate till Thursday , which was put and agreed to . The House adjourned at twenty minutes to one o ' clock . Wedxespay , Fun . 19 . The House met at four o ' clock .

    The following railway bills were presented and read a first . time : —The Leeds and Manchester , the York and Scarborough , the Ashton and Stalcybridge , the Manchester and Leeds ( Burnley branch ) , the Leeds and West Riding Junction , and the Richmond . In the coses of petitions for the following bills it was reported tliat the standing orders had been complied with , and the parties petitioning obtained leave to bring in their respective bills : —The Hidl and Selby Railway , the Kendal and Windermere Railway , the Cheshire and Birkenhead Railway , the Cockerinouth and Workington Ratiway , the Manchester and Carlisle Railway , and Leeds and Dewsbury Railway . In answer to a question from Mr . M . Milnes ,

    • Sir R . Peel stated that in the beginning of last year certain Italian refugees , subjects of Austria , resided in the British possessions in the Mediterranean , and the British Government , received a strong remonstrance from the Austrian Government , complaining . tliat these refugees were conspiring against the peace of Italy , and intimating that , if an insurrection should breakout in the Papal States , the Commander in Chief at Milan had received instructions to march at once for the purpose of suppressing it . In consequence of this " the Earl of Aberdeen communicated to the Austrian Government all that he knew respecting the designs of these parties , but he gave neither the names , letters , or copies of letters , or . extracts of letters , from any individuals residing within the power of the Austrian Government . With respect to the . descent upon

    Calabria , Lord Aberdeen had communicated-no information , for he had none—the event itself having taken every one by surprise . , On the 12 th of June , twenty-two individuals embarked from Corfu in a small boat , without the ' knowledge of tho _ Britisli authorities , and when the Austrian authorities asked Lord Seaton to send an armed steamer in pursuit of them , he refused to do so , contenting himself with sending to .. O ' tranto to communicate the fact to the Neapolitan Government ! " Subsequently a formal complaint was made to our ambassador at Vienna , that the British Government were affording shelter to parties concerting plots to disturb the tranquillity of Italy . This , he thought , was sufficient to relieve the Britisli Government from the . groundless imputations which had been tlu-own out against it .

    Mr . Ferrand wished to put the question to the Right Hon . Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department of which ho had given notice yesterday . He desired to know when the report of Mr . Moggcridge , who had heen sent down to the midland counties , for the purpose of inquiring into certain statements of distress made to the Government by thc stocking weavers , would be laid on the table ? Sir J . Graham said , it was true that Mr . Moggeridge had conducted the inquiry to which the Hon . Member referred . That inquiry was now closed : the report had been drawn up , but had-not yet reached hini . When it came into his possession he should take tlie earliest , opportunity ol laying it on the table .

    Tlie House resolved itself into a committee of ways and means . After the resolution of Sir R . Peel , and Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment , wliieh adds to it these o words , " That thc provisions of the said tax as t property should extend to Ireland , " had been read , Mr . Roebuck commenced his observations by calling on Sir Robert l ' ccl io point out the reasonsfor the onus lay upon him—which induced him to deviate in the case of Ireland from the rule wliieh governed his conduct in the case of England , Scotland , and Wales . He had said tliat there was now a great exigency , and that that applied equally to England and Ireland . If that were correct , then the exigency should be met by the united means of both kingdoms . He therefore called upon the

    Right Hon . Baronet to tax the realized capital of Ireland , as well as that of England , or else toshow that the circumstances of Ireland were such as to satisfy him in deviating from his general rule . He called also on the ' members of the agricultural interest of England to pluck up a little courage , to cease from crawling on their bellies before thc Minister , and to relieve their tenants , of whose distresses they were always complaining , by extending this tax to the realized capital of the sister country . He appealed likewise to the members of the mercantile interest for support to his proposition , on the ground that it would enable them to employ a greater amount of labour , and to pay a higher rate of wages for it . Sir It . Peel had originally refused

    to impose this tax on the land of Ireland , because he had increased the stamp duties in that countrv . Now , stamps being chiefly used in tlie transfer of property , tell heaviest on the middling and lower classes ; and therefore he advised him to remit the stamp duties , which fell on those classes , and to extend the operation of a tax which would fall principally on the more opulent . Atthe present moment the Irish landlord was receiving-great advantage from the amount of tithe recently added to his estate . He had also no assessed taxes to pay . Why , then , should he notsubmittotheimpositionoftheinoometax ? When he proposed this amendment on a former evening , Mr . Sheil advised him to read over Edmund Burke ' s speech on conciliation with America . He knew thc idea wliieh . was passing at the moment through Mr . Shell ' s mind—it was that of revolution ; it was that Ireland was so turbulent that it would not submit to such a tax . He was glad to see Mr . Sheil attending

    in his place in that House ; but the other Irish Members , where were they ? They had turned tail ; they had deserted their post , and had pusillanimousl ' y shrunk from the battle-field in that house , where they must know that then- battle must be fought , because from their own personal insignificance they could not command its attention . He adjured Sir 11 . Peel , the agricultural and the mercantile interests , not to sanction the extra taxation of England for the untaxed landlords of Ireland . He wondered how any landlord of that country could look-an Englishman in the face and talk of the advantages of a property tax . It was a little too bad . He would endeavour to remedy sucli a state of things by imposing the pronertv tax , which they doomed so advantageous , upon ' their shoulders : at the same time he wished it to be understood that he would exempt the income derived from the trade , commerce , and professions of that country Irom its operation .

    Mr . Sheil observed , that as Mi-. Roebuck had always expressed great solicitude for Ireland , lie was almost inclined to sav , " God save it from his friendship ! " After stating the reasons which had induced several Irish members to abstain from attending hi their places in that house , and after declaring , amid loud cheers , that he had not felt it consistent with his duty \ o follow thc example of his absent friends , he addressed himself to the consideration of the different proposals of Mr , Warburton and Mr . Roebuck on the subject of the income and property tax . "Perpetuity , " cried the one ; " Universality , " cried the other . " Eternity , " said thc voice from Kendal ; " . Infinity , " retorted the voice from Bath . -But Mr . Roebuck also called for

    equality of taxation for Ireland and for England and as a proof of what he meant by it , he proposed to lay on England Schedule A and Schedule D ; but on Ireland he would only impose Schedule A , and would leave out Schedule D . His scheme of equality , therefore , fell at once to thc ground . On a former occasion he ( Mr . Sheil ) had recommended Mr . Roebuck to read Burke ' s speech on Conciliation with America : on the present he would recommend him to read the speech of the eloquent defender of the Canadas ( Mr . Roebuck ) , in which admirable precepts were laid down for the mode in which England ought to govern that country—precepts which he wished his Learned Friend would follow on the present occasion . In his present amendment , however ,

    he differed from every Minister who had ever proposed an income tax . Neither Pitt , nor Fox , nor Perceval , nor the Earl of Liverpool , nor that fascinating financier Sir Robert Peel , had ever proposed an income tax for Ireland . The absentees from Ireland already drained the country of large sums ; the-Crown-rents and quit-rents of Ireland were also expended in the embellishment of London and oi Windsor Castle ; and Mr . Roebuck , with a knowledge of both these facts before him , proposed to exhaust it still more by draining from it the amount of the income tax . lie believed it to be unjust to impose this tax on Ireland—at any rate he knew ifrto be impolitic . With a full recollection of thc disturbance which Wood ' s halfpence created in Ireland in the time of Swift , would they arm Mr . O'Connell , a second Swift , with such an instrument of agitation as the

    property tax would prove in his hands ? He verily believed that Colonel Conolly , if such a tax were extended to Ireland , would himself turn Repealer , and take a Grey Porter view of thc state of that country . He warned them aaainst any measure which would make Catholicism , Protestantism , and Presbytirianism coalesce against the British . Government in Ireland . He would tell the House of a better mode of obtaining an increased revenue than the imposition of a property tax on Ireland . Saving was an equivalent to gain . Introduce better government into Ireland , and you may reduce your army . Adapt your institutions to Ireland , instead of adapting Ireland to your institutions , and you will gain perpetual ueace . Peace will gain wealth ; wealth will demand a greater consumption of coffee , sugar , and other taxable commodities , and will throw open a new field for British manufactures ; and the prosperity of Ire-

    < >

    land will repay , with magnificent usury , everv .- »• ' you may make for her improvement . nort Sir Jons Tyrrell made a short speech in fiv of the amendment , which created much amuser \ l in the committee . He repeated his complaint tf * the agricultural interest had not received anv i-pV * from Sir R . Peel ' s proposed measure of reduced f . ation ; and remarked , that it was a singular factfl I gentlemen on the Opposition benches supnorrwWi x Rightllon . Bart , upon the voluntary , wVilM men on the Ministerial benches supported him the compulsory , principle . He hoped that WC f read the division list to-morrow , he should find « f his agricultural friends , who complained so mueh f the treatment which they received from Govei-nmi ? had not gone " about ship , " but had given rt- ' votes in favour , of Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment Mr . W . Williams declared liis intention r > f -,

    porting the amendment in a speech in which T shewed that since the union the relative tavit £ 5 Ireland towards that of Great Britain had Voi , ° ally diminished , till now , inthe last financial ver- ' rt ' taxation levied on Ireland was only £ 4 , 0 . 07 000 wjn that on Great Rritain amounted to £ 51 300 nim He then entered into a review of Sir R . p ^> c' ""• cial speech , and concluded by declaring that wlT * Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment was disposed of liewoiU propose another , to thc effect that all persons rew . ' . ing public money in Ireland should pay thereon th same income tax as was levied in England [ fp « n no reason why tlie Lord Lieutenant , the LnJ Chancellor , and the Chief Secretary for fre W should be exempt from a tax on their large « nhw !'

    oecause they were paid in Ireland , which everv clert in the public offices here was obliged to pay nKJi because he received his small pittance of the mil / money in England . c Mr . Ross , Lord Berxahd , and Mr . Beuew rip fended the . Irish landlords from the attacks whipi , ' had been made upon them by thc Hon . Member % r Bath . A smart and somewhat angry dfccnssi ' ensued , in thc course of which the words "f 0 , 5 calumnies" were used by Mr . Ncwdigate , who m being called to order , apologised to thc House ' Z length ' ' Sir R . 1 eel rose , and admitted that , alih & iH , strict justice might require the extension of tho

    xa \ to Ireland , yet , as there was no machinery for its collection in that country , the creation of th » machinery would be so expensive , tliat the Govern * . ment would not be justified , in an economical point of view , m proposing its creation ; therefore , lie oo > > sidercd that it would he better to accept from Ivolaid an equivalent for thc property tax , and , comp arim the benefit which would accrue to England from the removal of the import duties with that which would accrue to Ireland , the latter country would not fo > justly dealt with if the property tax were imposed on her .

    Thc discussion was continued for some time after thc Right Hon . Gentleman had sat down , Mr . Ser . geant Murphy , Mr . Wallace , Colonel Sibthorp . Lord Paimerston , and several other lion . Members titkino part in it ; after wliieh the Committee divided , wlwn there appeared for the amendment 33 , against it 1 % , The Committee then divided on the original resolution , affirming the income-tax , when there appear *! for it 228 , against it 30 . ' ' The other orders of the day were then disposed of . and thc House adjourned at one o ' clock .

    "8 - The Northern Star. - February 22, 1...

    " 8 - THE NORTHERN STAR . - February 22 , 1845 ,

    \ Mm Htttm$Tmt.

    \ mm htttm $ tmt .

    Bow-Street, -.Trasimy.—L.Vnujias- Coxdfc...

    BOW-STREET , - . TrasiMY . —l . vnujiAS- Coxdfct of Pake . vts . —Jlanhen r .-irris , a trunk-maker , and Aim , his wife , were placed , ii the bar , hefore Mr . Jariline , charged under the V .-ipraai Act ( - "> tli iJo . 1 . IV ., chap . S 3 , sec . §) ,- .-it tlie instance < ji' : ! , * guardians of the Strand Union , with wilfully refusinc ami neglecting to maintain their three children , being " afck wholly or in part so . to do , in consequence of whieii tlity bec-.-mic ch .-ugeablc to tlie parish . —Mr . Corder , clerk to tli ' s guiirilian . " , . said the male defendant had wm-ked for year ; in ihe service of Mr . Hawkins , trunk-maker in thc S ? : rnK . 1 receiving twenty shillings as wages , and his wife u ; u , i ! ' v earned i-. bmit eight shillings per week in jobbing kihoik families in the neighbourhood , while the eldest soi : hiradd over to thorn eightshillings per week , which he rerawii in 1 luugei-foi-d-ni . 'ii-Uot , where lie was emplovsil , : m > i the

    eldest girl tlie sum of lour shillings , which she niwieov shoe-binding . The shocking condition in which they kept the younger members of the family , at IS , New Chuiciieourt , Strand , would be explained by jrcutleif . cn present , who discovered them in going their rounds to \ isit the poor and dispense charity , and also by the children who could prove that they had daily experienced the same treatment during the last three years . —Mr . John Limbird , publisher , 113 , Strand , and a guardian , said that on Wednesday last he went with others to New Church-court , for the purpose of administering charity , and ou entering So . 19 lie pre . cccded to the cellar , where he found the female defendant -. and , after a short delay , he heard a rustling noise in a little straw collected in a corner of the apartment , nntl discovered three children huddled tojiothoriii it behind a rug , without any other covering upon them . The day was very inclement ; and , on looking closer , he saw that tho little creatures had rags upon them which reached down merelv

    to tlie hips . On questioning the woman she admitted they were her children , adding that . no person had boon in the cellar except witness andthegentlcman who accompanied him , and that the children had not been out of it simetiie month of August last . She also said that the doorms always fastened when the lodgers went down for water , ami that lier liusbnnd , who was far gone in a censure-i ^ om had gone to the King ' s College Hospital , of which ho was an out-patient , for the purpose of procuring medicine and advice . As to the state in which he found the cellar , it would be impossible to give a correct description , for it was in ' a worse condition than any stable he had ever put liis foot in . —The male defendant said that when inquiries were made of him he told the truth to the guardians , and if his family appeared in a sta * e of destitution it ' was brought on by the intemperate habits of ids wife , but he never allowed his children to want food , although he was unable to wash them , being obHged to attend to liis work . —The defendants were remanded .

    SOUTinVARK . Monday . —Dreadful Effects of Drink . —Elizabeth Blake , the wife of a hatter in the Spa-road , JSemior . dsey was brought before Mr . Traill , charged with attempting to destroy sherelf by cutting her throat with a knife . Ihe prisoner of late had been subject to very violent fits ot passion , which were increased by habits of ' inebriety . On Saturday last she had heen for some hours from home , and on her return became excited , and , snati'liin ? up a knife , fell on her knees and drew it across her threat , inflicting a wound . Her landlady , on observing the act , immediately screamed out , and a t tlie same time rushed towards the prisoner , and seized her arm . which she endeavoured to disengage , and she was about to reveat the attempt upon her life , when her husband , alarmed by tlie noise , entered the room , and seeing what was gom ; : forward , tried to wrest the knife from the prisoner . The

    latter , however , made everv resistance that was in u « power , and repeatedly attempted to draw the kn ife aitain across her throat , and in the effort made by her husband to obtain possession of the weapon his hands wen- vaj much cut . He , however , at length succeeded in wresting the knife from her grasp , and as she appeared so determined on self-destruction , he called a policeman aiul »« her into custod y . The injury she inflicted Oil hen" - ' " * «* found on investigation not to be of such a danger ^ nature as was at first supposed . The witness added , that the prisoner had attempted to commit suicide twice before while in her house , and that witness had no < to « ta " produced from her habits of intoxication , for ner hutl » = ' was industrious , and there was no want of the rommoii necessaries of life . The prisoner ' s husband , alihoifj aware of the situation in which his wife was placed , <» notfrittend , and she was accordingly committed in detail " of finding the required suretiesfB ?

    LAMBETH . Monday . —Assaulting the Police . —Joint ] Ktnwi * , alias Wright , and Joseph Purdy , were charged , th efcriB « with violently assaulting a police-constable , and ' *><• '"X with attempting to rescue him from the cus tody ot J ' police . Prom the evidence it appeared that at a late nw £ on Saturday night the prisoner Kemble , who about tW « weeks since was charged at this court mthmunto' " !? ' * own mother , was found fighting with another pt-rsen " > Lambeth-walk , whom he severely punished . On ther" ; ties being separated , Kemble was given into cus tooj » J his opponent , and on the constable tailing hold of hw > » declared he would go quietly to the station-hnvisPi ; . ^ constable relinquished his hold . The officer did so . tailing lie would do as he had promised , but instead oi ' ¦" he attempted to make his escape , and upon bia » t' ; £ taken , he commenced a desperate attack on the coa ; . '" ble , and Purdy endeavoured to rescue him . Tw *; * brow

    constables came up to the assistance of their officer ; and Kemble , after dealing out severe pun 1- " ^ to the man who secured him , kicked another in tlie ' w savage maimer in a delicate part of his person , - ;;/ j for the man ' s activity , would have ruined hhr > ' " The prisoner Kemble said , in reply to the charge , 'V ; » r had been drinking rather freely , and was not const-ii * what he did ; and Purdy denied much of what had" ? sworn to b y the constables . Mr . Norton ( addres ^ Kemble ) observed , that one would have thought ' hilt t " fact of his having been in custody and remanded or . »* - picion of having caused the death of lus own mo ? ?' though he might be , and was , he thought , innocent oi j ° dreadful crime , would have worked some fiivoaral " , change in his conduct , and taught him to know aw * J ) better . The policemen had acted with great forhwi'j " - towards him , yet his conduct was both brutal and viol * and that of his companion was very little better . ' should , therefore , commit them both for one month to inf House of Correction with' hard labour .

    CLERKENWELL . Monday . — Infamous Conduct David Dumy wilr charged with the ' following heartless conduct :- " % three weeks ago a poor girl , about 18 years of age , n : " - Mary Bcckwith , who had heen a servant at the house 01 - gentleman in Jiurton-crescent , was returning t 0 h , { 1 \ ter ' s house after spending the day with some friends , v- » she was met by the prisoner , who induced her to «» with him . He drugged her with liquor , and conveyeo " ^ to a lodging-house , where , under promise of inan'i : ) g - seduced her . Next morning he endeavoured toquu'i % mind by promising marriage , but at tlie same time , as ?» her he was a soldier , and wanted 25 s . to buy hunse" « ' She borrowed the money from her friends for hini , bu . « few days after lie -absconded , taking with him lK , xl ' ' . j raining every article of clothing the poor g irl Pf- ^ : " , ^ On inquiry the prisoner , who hits been at different i >« ; of his life a soldier , a policeman , and a cabinati , ! " * , icr out to be married , and his wife was in court . Hi ov appeared , that when ' about to be apprehended ^ r ^ t out two pistols and a sword , and threatened to n } 1 " ' ! , ! . ,. if she dared to say anything against him . —He « : t ~ - niandcd .

    Printed By Dougal M'Gowan, Of 17, Great """J""',, ' Street, Haymarket, In The City.Of Westmins Ter, ^

    Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great "" "j ""' ,, ' street , Haymarket , in the City . of Westmins ter , ^

    . Office In The Same Street And Parish, ...

    . Office in the same Street and Parish , ior " ¦ " . prietor , FEARGUS O'CONNOR , Esq ., and publish "•• ¦ V Y . Li . iAN HEVfjTT , of No . IS , Chuvles-stvoot , ™ " !^ street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Mary , >« ^ - ton , in the County of Survey , at the Office , 1 " ¦ _ Strand , in the Parish of St . Mary-Ie-Strai " " ' City ef Westminster Saturday , Febnary 22 , 1845 .

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), Feb. 22, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns2_22021845/page/8/