On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Adverts (1)
  • 
• Text (4)

  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.

  • 

    ¦fi' i -Y". - ; "• -)' ¦ '.? 'J Y " * ' ...

  • 

    THE NORTHERN STAR SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1845.

  • 

    LORD DEVON'S COMMISSION. Tub peculiar an...

  • 

    LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON THE EMPLOY* MENT OF...

• 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.

    H'Do-All. .' Ic,; ¦ . ; Mac Thirsting Fo...

    _ ' H _)^ OFFI CE ESPIONAGE . _GBEAT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE _ELEC-. TOItS AMD INHABITAKTS OF . FINSBURY . _7 _^ W © Ju _^ ym ght laat , a meeting of the electora and inhabaants of the borough _ofFwsbury , oonTened by requisition , was held at the _Wfute Oohduit House Tavern , Pentonville , relative to the pening of letters atthe Post-office , addressed to Mr . _E S . Duncombe , the representative oi the borough . . The siiacious hall _™ _-i _^ J _% r _% On the platform were T . Wakley , _%%£ _•?¦> _% * C . fffaper , M . P ., and a . J . -B- _^ ' _^ K ££ _z _smSortedbya large number of influential electors _•^ shades of politics . Richard Taylor , Esq * , common _coimcilinanof the City of London , was called to ihe chair-

    . ... _,..,-... The Chhbiuh said that the borough of Finsbury lad done itself great credit by the choice of its present representatives ; they were both gentlemen of great ability , perseverance , and courage . ' In proportion as a public man was courageous he became an object of suspicion to the Government . The power of opening letters in the Post-office might be a most dangerous weapon in the hands of a tyrannical Government . He ( Mr . Taylor ) recollected that during the time ofthe Sidmouth Administration , when it -was deemed necessary to get iip sham plots , thc letters of Mr . Coke , of Norfolk , the late Earl of Leicester , were opened in order to obtain materials an which to ground a charge against him of _hostality-¦ fo the Government of the day . But such conduct

    would be tolerated no longer , for the people would -riot submit to _Buch a monstrous violation of that confidence which , ought to subsist between the members and their _co-ostitucnts . The electors of Finsbuiy were bound to call upon the Government'to wipe off the stigma which it had attempted to cast on the character of Mr . Duncombe . If they did hot , they Would be unworthy of that reputation for public spirit which they had hitherto mamtained . ' Mr . _Lrnr 6 sin moving thefirst resolution , observed _fet three distinct _cliarges had been made against the Government—one was , that letters had been illegally aliened and detained at the Post-office ; the next ,

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

    That this meeting : learns with morrifieation and disgust that there exists atthe General Post-office a secret spy system uuder whicli letters arc broken open , seals _counterfeited , and post-marks falsely imposed , in order _to'flcceive the persons to whom such letters are directed , and to whom they arc afterwards forwarded , while the information thus obtained bus in some eases been used to promote despotic interests of foreign Governments ; that -Sub 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 _esssntiallj necessary for the honour of this country , and also for public satisfaction and _seeuriH-, that a _strict _searcliiusj , and open inquiry should lie 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 . Hodokin seconded the motion . The question was "between Sir J . Graham and Mr . Duncombe , the one a renegade to his former party , the latter a steight-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 . Walker moved the next resolution : — That this meeting have read with indignation thc statement made by our representative , Mr , Thomas "Dun combe , in his place in Parliament , that Ins correspondence has been clandestinely intercepted and secretly opened , under Government authority , at the Post-office

    that ia the opinion of this meeting the only excuse for the exercise of such power towards Mr . Duncombe , would be that ihe Corernment had good reason to deem liim 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 io ourselves ., as well as to Mr . Duncombe , to demand from the House of Commons such an investigation into thc proceedings towards him as shall either justify the implied suspicions of the Government , or fully establish thc innocence of our Ion * -- tried _andfaithfulrepresentative .

    The Secretary then read thc following letter from Mr . Duncoro . be : — To the Electors of Finsbury in Public Meeting assembled . Gentlemen , —I have fhe 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 "borough of "Finsbury to meet on my account—the fault , however , rests not with me , but with her "Majesty ' s Ministers . -s I need not now assure you how happy I am , at all ¦ * _tm _** to meet those whom it is my pride to represent , when questions affecting public interests arc 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 have proposed tome , I hope I may be permitted to state that all that I I 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 fact of the Government having violated the sanctity of my correspondence . The expression of your independent opinion , I hope , _wUlisaat me iu 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 cither advantage to you or credit to myself . I have the honour to be , gentlemen , Tour obedient and faithful servant , Albany , "Feb . 25 . Thomas S . _Duscohbe .

    The -reading of this letter produced vehement cheering . Mr .. Gkoroe Rogers said , he had often addressed them on the _malpractices of both "Whigs and Tories ); but never did he feel 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 fhe chance of selecting better men . ( Htar bear . ) But never before did he think them so immeasurably base ( hear , hear ) as they had now proved themselves by their sanction of the petty larceny _Tillanies of the Home Secretary . ( Tremendous cheering . ) The electors of this borough had a duty to

    perform ; Finsbury was at the head of the democratic tree , ( loud cheers ) , and that position must be maintained . He took upon himself to say that no other 656 men , except in the lowest refuse of society , would have refused Mr . Duncombe ' s just request . ( Great cheering . ) Mr . Duncombe was a high-spirited and faithful champion of the people , and injustice to him and themselves , they ; were bound to obtain such an inquiry as would either acquit Mr . Duncombe , or placo them in a position to obtain another representative . ( Cheers . ) Sir Charles Napiep . 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 , thc Go-Temmenthad ao right to violate the sanctity of cor--respondenoe between a representative of the people -and his constituents . Mr . Duncombe had put to Sir James Graham a plain simple question— "Did you openmy letters , or did you not ? " He could get no answer . The matter was referred to two committees , but the reports were silent -with -respect to Mr . Duncombe ; -upon that part of the case they made no report whatever . The question for the electors of Finsbury to decide was thi 3—he had been suspected of carrying on a treasonable correspondence with lome persons in this country . Was Mr . Duncombe

    capable of high treason ? ( Cheers , and cries of No , no . ) "Well , then , you must believe either that Mr . Ihinebmbe w * s plotting against the Government , or _fjuat Sir J . Graham was _plotting against Mr . Duneombe . Under these circumstances , the electors oi Rnsbmy had done right to demand a full inquiry into the subject . The reaoffltion was carried unftnimoualy . Mr . CooF & t moved the third resolution as fol-* _ewa : — _"Tliatapetitwi _^ embodying the foregoing resolutions , and praying tha House of Commons to adopt such mea sures as will effectually prevent the recurrence of the abuses complained of , bo signed on behalf of this meeting by the chairman and the committee , and presented by T . Wakley , Kto ., our worthy representative .

    Dr . _Eeps , in an eloquent speech , seconded the re-» lntion , which was carried unanimously . Thesecre-Ury then read the petition , which was an echo of tfat resolutions , and moved its adoption . R . 5 . BtEwrrr , M . P ., seconded the motion , and aald Le attended there to testify his high admiration and esteem for tiie man they had chosen to represent them ; and his great detestation of the spy system adopted by the Home Secretary . His own opinion was , that Mr . Duncombe ' s letters had been opened without a warrant . The petition they were about to adopt should have his most cordial support , and further , so long as a motion could be formed , and so long as Sir James Graham remained obstinate , so _IoM-would ha support Mr . Duncombe . ( Loudcheers . ) —Tbe _pebtira __ vrt 8 _nnaiimonsly adopted . Mr . "W " _iKimr _; M . P ., now rose amidst great applause , and said they had allotted him a duty which he _shonH perform with great pleasure , and he hoped to -their satisfaction . He stood there in the double capacity of a _dtise-ai elector of Finsbury to protest

    H'Do-All. .' Ic,; ¦ . ; Mac Thirsting Fo...

    . _against the disgraceful spy system , and as a representative to obey his constituents'' commands . Thomas Slingsby Duncombe was as bold , as honest , as faithful a representative of the people as could possibly be found or conceived of <—( loud cheers)—a man who sever dissembled— -in whom , there was no . deception . When Mr . Duncombe first mooted the question , some ofthe 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 , but Mr . Duncombe was hot allowed to be 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 " bo 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 bvthe Committee . No such , thing . He had turned the folios of the report over , and over , very carefully , and he thought he had lost his eye-sight , for not a word did he find in that report relative to his Hon ! Colleasrue . The report was unsatisfactory

    to Mr . Duncombe ( an _extoordinary man he would hare been if it had not ) . The electors of Finsbury had done themselves immortal honour by meeting as they had done that evening lb defend their representative . If it had . been a little , girl' or an old maid , with au exuberance of curiosity that had been prying into their letters , it might have been excused , but a Government controling : the destinies ; of millions being guiltyof such baseness , was disgusting and abhorrent . ( Loud cheers . ) : Mr . Wakley , in the course of his speech , illustrated his _argument by a reference to the case of the expatriated patriot ,, John Frost , at the mention' of whose name , _jthe meetingrose en masse , arid cheered and cheered again ; and , continued the Hon . Member ,. I _contended then , and have always contended , that , had

    justice been done , that much injured maa and his compatriots would have been instantly liberated . ( Renewed _cheerinj- _** . ) . Hut , returning tothe _inime-Idiate case of Mr . Duncombe , his colleague said to Sir J , ; Graham , "Tou opened my letters . " The only ' answer he gets is : " What I have done , I have done ; on my own responsibility . " Now he ( Mr . 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 . Diincombe ' 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 his letter read that evening , had intimated that unless an . inquiry was granted whereb y he might clear himself of the imputation cast on his character heniust 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 then * pleasing duty to send him back again . ( Loud cheering ) . Mr . 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 .

    : Mv . Em moved a vote of thanks to the chairman , which 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 .

    ¦Fi' I -Y". - ; "• -)' ¦ '.? 'J Y " * ' ...

    ¦ fi' i -Y " _. - ; "• - ) ' ¦ ' . ? 'J Y " * ' * _* ' ' * V * _i ' "J - " _*" _* ' " ' ' 5 "" ' { _* ' * - ¦ ... * _-. _» •¦ . ' ¦ .-- ' _3 .. v . _^ 4 __ __ . __ __ _^_^^^ _- _^~~~^

    Ad00409

    THE MINERS' MAGAZINE . EdUedby W . P . Boberts , Esq . THE Sixth _dumber will be published on the 9 th of March inst . Price Four-pence . TLe Lancashire Miners arc requested to receive tlieir numbers through their Delegates , who will be at the Countj- "Delegate Meeting on the 3 th of Marcb . : TheMAGAZIKE 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 S , Princess-street , Manchester .

    The Northern Star Saturday, March 1, 1845.

    THE NORTHERN STAR SATURDAY , MARCH 1 , 1845 .

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

    LORD DEVON'S COMMISSION . Tub peculiar and delicate circumstances connected with thc above commission led us to anticipate a very different document than the report with which the country has been favoured . The constitution of the tribunal was calculated to inspire us with jealousy and suspicion ; while the 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 load of odium tha ttime and neglect 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 circumstances , 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 uuder which the commissioners have presented their report , we may be permitted to observe that the wholesale apology offered for thc 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 subjeet we feel bound 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 followed , jather than have preceded , the " sweeping charges" established by the report against the Irish andlords .

    Now let us compare thc 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 will show that the agricultural labourer of Ireland continues to safer the greatest ' privations and hardships ;

    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 haTe 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 ofher country in Europe havo to sustain .

    Again , under the head "Labourers" we find the following extracts : — In adverting to thc 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 adequatel y the privations which they and their famines habitually 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 then * cabins arc seldom a protection against the weather , that a bed or a blanket is a rare luxury , and that nearly in all , their pig and manure heap constitute their only 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 . Up to this period any improvement that may have taken place is attributable almost entirely to the habits of temperance in which they have so generally per . severed , and not , we grieve to say , to any increased demaud 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 be ascribed to the mis-state ments or exaggerations _' of the commissioners ; 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 aud uncivilised practices of those gentlemen . Upon this subject the report shall speak for itself , and from which we select the following unequivocal condemnation of the landlords of Ireland . The report

    says—In common with the committee of 1832 , whose language we have quoted , we feel the impossibility 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. Tub 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 , has not in- the slightest degree tended towards their improvement and this " arises _fbom the abuse Of a . right , ' the existence of which " is essentiai _, to the mmktknance of property ; " an " abuse , " moreover , for thc correction of which the _commia _* _sioners cannot suggest or recommend any legal remedy . Are we not entitled to ask to what end , then , all this fuss ahd bother ? when we discover

    thatthe existence of these " abuses" are essential to the maintenance of ; property . Suppose wc say-that the abuse " arises' * _fi-omtiie middle system—from the clearance : system—from bad tenure—want- of im _* _- provements—consolidation of farms—recovery Of rent —agency—sale of estates—want of agricultural _u > 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 suggestlegal remedies for the _abusesexisting ? .

    ; Before , wo offer a . few suggestions on this report ; we shall first state pui * preference for , it , over all , documents of a similar nature that have been laid before the House of Commons . We' should attach but veiy trifling importance to the report in question , if placed in the hands of a jobbing Whig Mniatry , well knowr ing that it would be '; dismissed with a becoming lamentation for the grievances complained of , and a regret of the inapplicability of legal enactments for their correction—a tear for . the sufferers ; arid a respect for . the _^" _recommendatibhs ., 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 . "' '"'„ , '

    I Those readers who . have learned the . state of-Ireland from theNorthern Star arc already in possession of every single grievance set forth in the report ; while the corrections proposed _^ arc similar in character to what we have so frequently recommended ; and the result produced by the present system is precisely what ive have oftentimes stated it to be . Uncertainty of tenure we have described as the greatest evil against which Irish farmers havo to contend : and , curious enough _,. the reportmakes a striking difference between want of tenure and uncertainty of tenure . We shall select a few extracts .

    tehuke , Under this head we find thc following observationsit frequently happens that large estates in that country are held by the proprietors iit _atrict limitation ; and ( he pecuniary circumstances of the landed proprietors _generally , arising hi 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 would conduce at once to their own interest and the publie advantage . Many ef the evils incident to the occupation of landin Ireland may be 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 : — ' ., ¦ . __ ' _.-.. v- ¦¦' ; _.-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 Ufe , and other persons wider legal disability , should be empowered , subject to proper and efficient restrictions , to charge thc 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 must never be forgotten that an improved cultivation , with the consequent increase of produce from the soil , and of comfort to tho 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 also thinkit 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 then * glebe lands , the Provost and PcUdws _' of Trinity College , the Trustees of Erasmus Smith , the * Board of Education , and thc Trustees of Sir P . Dunne ' s and Wilson's Hospitals .

    Again ;—looking generally through Ireland , we believe that the larger proportion ofthe land is occupied by tenants-at-will There has been of late year- * , from various causes , an indisposition in many landlords to grant leases ; and it appears from tbe 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 ia , 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 independentof all foreign aid : and yet the present " abuse" isto be allowed to remain for the maintenance of the existing rights of 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 atthe law of primogeniture , the master evil under which the countiy

    suffers ; a blow which we trust will be followed , up , by the total destruction of the Bystem . In speaking of tenure , we may safely aver that certainty of tenure- — that 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 landconsequentupon the application of increased labour would lead to the destruction of the consolidation system ; the recovery of rent would be a thing achieved without distress or ejectment ; agency could be effected without trouble ; the sale of estates would be of more

    daily occurrence m consequence oi 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 ; county ceBS would be a burden easily borne ; agrarian outrages would cease , and the occupation of the Commissioners of Public Works would begone .

    The Condition-of-Iroland question being involved in the recent mquiry , we prefer waiting for the appendix , whereby we shaU be put 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 we 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 faithful view that we have _eyer 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 , _WTetchedness , and poverty to which the non-performance ofthe duties of their natural protectors has brought them ?

    Itis 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 Malthuslans should unite for the maintenance of' abuses" long _oherished 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 beg to direct the especial attention of the reader—especially to that portion which gives the preference to spade _husbandi-y , 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 ,

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

    THE , LEGALITY OF _LETTER-OPENING . * The revelations made by Mr . Duncombe , of the infamies ofthe 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 of " supercilious silence , " at first , assumed by the Home Secretary : , was evidently dictated by a 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 odious but necessary duty . " In this , however , the Whig ; renegade " reckoned without liis host" ; for the fact was , that nine-tenths of " the House" itself were unaware of the existence even of

    such an " odious power ; " and the natural surprise and indignation ; felt atthe _^ exposure made by Mr . Duncombe hurried Hon . Members into a course of procedure which drove the Government from its original * intention of setting Mr , Duncombe and public feeling at defiance . Sir James Graham had to comedown from the high perch of "official responsibility" on to the ground of " inquiry ' ; " and though he and his comi'bgues 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 . Gbaham was thus obliged to concede to the wounded feelingof "the House , " was hot the only one that has resulted from Mr . Dusoombe _' _s labours . The facts that he has detailed before the -. face of the country have set the (' gentlemen ofthe long robe" at work * , and their " inquiries" arc somewhat , different in nature , to those which engaged the > . attention of the secret committee-men . They heard it alleged and admitted that thepvactice had existed for a . long period of time ; and that it had been in- extensive use .

    Tim-a attention , therefore , has * been directed to the ascertaining of the' AUTHORITY for the practice ; whether , there is anylegal right for the Home Minister to stop , detain , or open letters ; whether he can legally issue a warrant for any such purpose ; br _' whether it is not a practice that has existed without _au-THOKiir , and . been persevered in . to our own times , because _unoticsti ' oncci , * and-it is more than likely that the inquiries of these gentlemen will lead to the questioning of the assumed power before the Judges of Law and dispensers of Justice .

    In the course of thc debate on P _' riday night last Mr . "W . H . Watson , Member for Kinsalo , said : — Wheu the question was first agitated ,, lie ( Mr . Watson ) called upon the Government to say on what law they rested their claim to search letters passing through the Post-office , they being the _carriei's-of those letters ; but he received no information upon tho subject . The Right Hon . Gentleman , the Home Secretary , referred' to the statute of Queen . Anne and tbat of her present Majesty ; but , according to the report of the Lords' Committee , the Secretary of State could hot from this source make out that lie derived any right upon the subject , , The latter statute be { Mr . Watson ) had ' before him , and tiie Act ( 1 Victoria , c . 86 ) merely stated , that whoever should open or wilfully detain a letter in the Post-office should be _ituiltv of " a misdemeanour , adding a proviso that this

    should not extend to the opening or detaining a letter in obedience to a warrant from the Secretary of State . But , according to the Lords' report , the right of the Secretary of State to issue _sucli a warrant depended entirely upon the common law , and there was no right whatever given _bythis statute . __ Now , lie ( Mr . Watson ) had taken some pains to examine the authorities , and look into the law upon the subject , but be could find no authority in any law-book whatever for the right of a Secretary of State to open a letter at thc 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 seise 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 him . ( Hear . ) This was a great constitutional question . ( Cheers . ) To talk of investigating the subject without inquiring into the law under which they lived was reaUy 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 addressed 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 . ) Tho 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 complained ? Why , where was the evidence to be obtained ? What letters had been opened was known only to the

    Secretary of State and his subordinates . How could evidence be produced by the Hon . Member for Finsbury , except that he had heard certain things , and thought them probable and believed tliem ? The Government and its subordinates alone had the information . ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . Friend the Member for Weymouth ( Mr . GvW . Hope ) had said that this question ought not to be discussed in the House , but in the Queen ' s Bench , or in some other 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 ? 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 Tenter den , 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 , heai _* . ) 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 only to avow that a particular officer opened a letter belonging to the Hon . Member for Finsbury , aud let liim take proceedings at law against that person , and then j ustify under this pretended right . ( Hear , hear . ) But until he ( Mr . Watson ) heard some authority cited , he would maintain that the whole system of opening letters at the Post-office was illegal . ( Hear , hoar . ) 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 ; aud these ,

    which were declared to be illegal in the case of Wilkes , had existed in the time of Elizabeth , in tbe 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 . Ono was the case of . the editor and printer of the _Nortli Briton . The Secretary of State issued a warrant to seize all his papers j the validity of that warrant was tried , and the jury gave very large damages against the porsons concerned in issuing the warrant , And what did the Chief Justice say jipon that occasion ? He spoke as follows * . — " A warrant was granted by Lord Halifax , the Secretauy 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 Socretary of State previous to his granting the warrant : " whereas every lawyer knew that no warrant to arrest a person and examine his house was good without information duly laid , and the warrant itself stating the of ence upon the face of it . " The Chief Justice then proceeded to state that the small injury done to the plaintiff , or the inconsiderablcness of his station , were not material to the question of right ; of course the same arbitrary power could have been claimed over all thc King ' s subjects , violating Magna Charta ,. and destroying tho liberties of the people . The King ' s counsel of that day and the solicitor of the Treasury endeavoured to maintain the legality of that warrant ; but his lordship said , — " To enter a house by a nameless warrant , in order to seize thero , is worse than the Spanish Inquleltion . " That was not the speech of a

    _pohticalpartisanm that house , or on the hustings , but the judicial opinion of a Chief Justice . And he 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 Uttle 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 caso in the StaUifrials , vol . 19 , came still nearer to the present . A special verdict was found in that case , in reference to the warrant issued against Mr . Bntick , and the case was very elaborately argued ; the judgment of the Chief Justice affected the present case considerably . His lordship was _pressod 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 liis lordship , " and is too modern 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 tho plaintiff—a jpower claimed by no other magistrate whatsoever , Chief Justice Scroggs excepted . " ( Cheers . ) " It was argued that if the Secretaryof State had power to commit in treason , he hath it in lesser crimes . This I deny . " Justice Rokeby said : " He is only a conservator of the peace . There is no law , and less justice , to justify the defendants in what they have dono ; if there was it would destroy all comfort in society , for papers are often 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 bo found sanctioned by no authority . ( Hear , hear . ) There was nothing but the practice from tho Revolution ; and what was the value of that ? It wag only a continuance of illegal acts ; it was only so many Secretaries of State , from year to year , issuing warrants which were illegal ; and a continu _* ance of illegal acts would not constitute a legal right . " * In Money ' s case , the argument from usage wa 6 urged in vain . In reference to General Warrants , Mr . Justice Tales said— " If you shew mo a usage from the foundation of Rome , it wiU not legalise such a practice as this . " ( Hear , bear . ) A usage from the creation of the world for Secretaries of State to open letters in the Post-office would not make the practice legal . ( Cheers . ) And what sort of warrants were these ? Warrants must be founded on information , and the offence stated on the face of them .

    Where was the mformaUon _? How did the Secretary of State take it *? Was he able to administer an oath to the party ? Certainly not . The warrants , therefore , were illegal . ( Hear _. -hcar . ) It was true they were referred to iu those Acts of Parliament ; but was it intended by the Acts to confer upon the Secretary of State the right to issue tliem ? Certainly not . They merely relieved the Postoffice authorities from penalties in acting under his warrants to detain lettors , but conferred no right to open letters—though thc former was nearly as bad as tlio latter . ( Hoar , hear . ) Upon a great question Iiko this it was of the deepest importance to the country to know what was the state of the law ; and he invited thc Solicitor-General to state ; in tho face ofthe nousc and of the country , upon what _authority arid what grounds of law ho justified the Secretary of State in examining letters at the Post-office . It was not of the slightest . avail to refor to usage ; for if there was really uo legal authority for thc practice , the thing was utterly and entirely illegal , ( Cheers . )

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

    * Here , then ' , tho whole practice is called in question ; and called in question , too , in a manner that must secure for the practice a legal answer , if it is to be preserved . Thc reasoning of Mr . Watson seems to us to be exceedingly strong . The point he puts , as to _theiinability 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 ustobB conclusive . If the reasoning of Mi-. "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-Generai , vouchsafed

    on Friday night last . The reader will have seen that Mr . _Watsojt " invited" the Solicitor-GexbIul 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 Kinsalo said this was like the case of general warrants , and his Hon . and Learned Friend had carefully searched the authorities , and come down armed with the opinions of judges onthe question of general warrants ; and lie said those opinions were conclusive , and that this kind of warrant can no more stand good thun : general warrants . Did his Hon . and Learned Friend know the history of general warrants ? 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 exiBted by Act of Parliament till the year 1694 ; that in 1691 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 , tliey were issued by successive Secretaries of State , till the year 1763 , when in the case which the industiy of his Hon . and Learned Friend had discovered general warrants 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 tho 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 that report : but that was not all tliat was said , ( near . ) 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 thc act of Anne 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 tliis statemeat . —" The terms on-whieh the provisions ofthe 9 th Aniie , cap . 10 , upon this subject , arc enactedj can only be explained upon the supposition that this power was , at the time , fully recognised " ( hear , hear ); 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 llouse of Lords had made a general declaration that the power of _detaining and opening letters was not authorized by statute at all . Then his , Hon . and Learned Friend said that there were no authorities in the books sanctioning tliis practice . Now , 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 tune , which lie might have devoted to more important objects . But his Hon . and Learned Friend said that , this was an illegal power , that there was neither statute nor common law for it , and that , give liim usage since the foundation of thc world for it , nothing should convince hun that the power was legal , or ought to subsist . Now , it was impossible to argue with a person who spoke in that way ; but lie ( the Solicitor-General ) w . rald hope that there were others in the llouse who would take a calmer view of the matter , aud would agree with liim , although he could not go back to tbe foundation of Rome , or of the world , in thinking that the researches of the committee , and the industry ofthe lion . Member / or Kendal ( Mr . Warburton ) had 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 early times ; that It was exercised tinder the Commonwealth in 1656 ; that one reason for the establishment of the post by Cromwell's Parliament was tlie'faeility wliich 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 iOth section they would find it enacted , "And whereas , abuses may be committed by wilfuUy opening , 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 , ' I etuined , or delayed , any letter or letters , . packet or packets , after the same is or shall be delivered into the generator other post-office , or into the hands of auy person or persons employed for the receiving or conveying 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 . " Now , 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 , thc oath whieh the _Post-Master-General and oilier 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 au 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'lsraeli ) when he said that no power was conferred on the Secretary of State , 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 opemng or detaining auy letter , but that it was never iutended . 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 ? Thc fact was , thatthe 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 which 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 shirks 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

    "Make the worse appear the better reason , " 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 be 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 " . m / _omattW' necessary whereon to ground such warrant ; _hotv he could administer an oath to the party tendering such information—as all " informations" to be legal , must be on oath : thc S _olicitor-Gknerai . was " invited" to show how all this could be done ; and he never even glanced at the points at all He 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-adrisei * ofthe Grown .

    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 usage in the world would not justify the act . And so it appears to us . As for tho fact relied on by the Solicitor -General , that because the practice was exercised in secret , therefore all the law-books wore silent on the point ; we opine that it proves too much . Is it to be supposed that if tho power was known to exist , and to be conferred by law , and _aoeordant 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 tho number of the different warrants that the officers of State and the Magistrates can issue would he not hare spoken of the power residing in the Secretary of State to detain and open letters , had he been aivare that such a power legally existed ? ' And if none of our great constitutional writers ever advert to such power as one known to the 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 Wart rants both in " use" and •• recognised" from

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

    1694 to 1763 , until their validity waa contested and' the decision of the Judges obtained against them . Usage did not avail in tliat case , though General Warrants had once an _ActHif . Pa ' _rUameL existence ; it would hardly be likely to avail in m case of letter-opening , where no such _authority _ca be shewn to have ever existed for the _•* odin _» practice , nor anything but usage to justify it j an _mf _> lied " recognition" in the statute of Ask _' e

    The Soiicitok-Gkiveral did not accept the m ' "invitation" of Mr . Watson ; he did notprofess _^ willingness to lay the warrant on the table of "t _^ House , " that Mr . Duncombk mi ght take it into tb ! Court of Queen ' s Bench , and there try its validit The SoLiciiOR-GE . VEBAi . did not accept this challen */ . ' Why , we are left to infer ; and we mistake muelUf the general inference be not , that he dare not ' n will , however , be Mr . Dukcombe _' s business to _f liim to do it . " As Mi * . Watson- said , _tlif is a great constitutional question , It oubU to be thoroughly tried . If there be no A _* _jinoit m- " for the " odious" practice , how greatly indebted to "Mr Duxcombe , for exposing and resisting the unjust fUld

    Illegal assumption of power ,, will Englishmen in general be ! What a " service to the State" will h not have rendered ! He will have secure d for hm , self a niche in the temple of fame ! He will _•»>„ , withl'YM and Hampden , and the other glories of th land , who shine resplendent in history for ) iavin- > resisted arbitrary power . To a full trial of the que . £ tion we invite him , satisfied that to the uttenB 03 _^ the people will sustain him . Let him take the case into the Courts , before tho Judges , the _moment _' _iu gets into a position to he able to do so . Convict the Government there , of having acted illegally , and a successful blow would be struck at the " odious " practice ; a blow from which the practice _couli

    never recover . Wc understand that Mr . Dukcombe ' s motion for bringing thc Post-office officials to the Bar of " the House , " is delayed by the forms ofthe House , ft was expected , that , as it affected the privileges of t | -. Members , it would have taken precedence * on _Tues . day . It turns out , however , that it had to abide _br " coal-pit law "— "first come , first served . " Mr . Duncombe ' s motion is waiting its " turn . "

    -2 _^* Since above was type , wc have learned that it is likely Mr . Duncombe ' s motion will come on to-morrow night ( Friday ) , when he is to more it as an amendment on the proposition that "the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means . " We shall give thc debate in a 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- thc course of the debate on the Po 8 t-ofik « Iniquities , on Friday night last , Lord John _Russeli , took occasion to sing his own praises as a very self . denying Minister of State . His words were : — We all know very well that , a great many years ago , when Lord Sidmouth held office , that statcsmaa thought it was a fair and legitimate means of maintaining the public peace to employ spies . ( Hear , hear . ) Mj opinion is , that tho spies so employed wore often the cause 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 _inati . gation of those parties . ( Continued cheers . ) I consider the employment of spies not only objectionable , but high )? dangerous , and contrary to the spirit of the constitution of a free countiy . ( Loud cheers . ) But are 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 be employed . ( Cheers , ) And when a person of violent political opinions , a Chartist , who was iu the counsel of

    those who at the time I refer to were called physical fores Chartists , offered me his services with the view of detecting them , I refused ' at once his _ofFec ( Loud cheers , ) I believe , sir , that the employment of spies does not at _present exist . But you have no sanction by law to thai policy ; you have no declaration on the part of this House wluch secures you against the employment of spies for tha 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 _i «> a !>

    opening of letters in the Post-office , can you be _secure-i > i » cau you rely upon it>—that the Right Hon . the Socretary of State , anxious for the preservation of the public tranquillity , and feeling himself responsible for the preservation of that tranquillity , will not have recourse " to that which 1 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 , and for which he afterwards suffers punishment . - .

    On the danger and wickedness of employhig SPIES , we are not about to differ from the Noble Lord . On that head we have opinions quite as decided as hia own , and perhaps a great deal more so , But while we shall not quarrel with the late Home Secretary for his denunciation of the spy-system in general , wc shall take exception to the inference he intended to be drawn from his statements , that ht had never resorted to the infamous practice . He makes a great merit of having "declined" the " offered" _serriccs 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 his own spies who were actively at work at that very timet Lord John " declined" the " offer" made to hun , and boasted of it , and boasts of it again : but he did not decline the services of Harrison at Bradford and Leeds , the scoundrel who received £ 80 iu a few weeks from the chief-constable of Bradford , for procuring the conviction and punishment of parties for offences committed at his instigation ! Lord John , when he uttered his unseemly boast , had surely not heard the statement of Mr . JiMEs Stuart Wortlev .

    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 _Mozekysof Leeds , _* whowas "instigating" to "physical force outbreaks" at the time that he was in the pay of the Leeds Police , £ 12 haying been set apart by the Watch Committee for that purpose . Lord John did not " decline" thc services of the entrappers of John Fbost , who concocted tlieir hellish plans in the baok 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 _Hoibekkt aw ! _Guytojt at Sheffield , who got his victims " punished " so severely , that death humanely released them from Lord John ' s prison-torture ! Lord Johx did not "decline" the services of atrocious miscreants ott those occasions ; and his doing so in the case where tho " offer" was made to him , was only because he had his own spies , performing his own work to his perfect satisfaction .

    But about this same " offer , " and the party s _» " offering . " We believe the fact to 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 th « commission of crimes , " Peter Hoev and Josefs CRAHTitEE , of Barnsley , were " convicted" of having attended a meeting in that town , at whioh they had taken no part whatever . But for such bare _attondance [ they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment each . The sentence was a most savage and inhuman one . _Peier Hoey was , and is , a _respectablei quiet , good-disposed subject . He was known to Captain Wood of Sandal , near Wakefield , who manifested

    a great interest in his fate , and used all the influenoft he could bring to bear to obtain a remission of the monstrous sentence . Of course the application had to be made on behalf of both parties , Hoby 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 John put into Mr . Gully ' s hands a letter thathe had received from _Cham-ree , offering that , if released from imprisonment , he would " peach , " and tell all he knew of the intentions of the " physical force" Chartists . God knew that all ho had to tell , Lord Jo _« _B knew well enough before ; for . his own spies had not been idle in INSTIGATING ! but the _«« ofiV' wa «

• 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/ns3_01031845/page/4/