Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 22nd February 1845, Edition 3 of 4, Page 8

Page 8
Page 8
8 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (3)
    • ([Continued[from oun seventh page.
    • plte hxttllwmt
    • 'rintedby "DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of .17, Great )Viadn«f;
  • Text (7)
  • 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.

      R 8 - . The Northern Star..., . Februaby...

      r 8 - . THE NORTHERN STAR ..., . Februaby 22 , 1845

      ([Continued[From Oun Seventh Page.

      ([ Continued [ from _oun seventh page .

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      prehensive nature , have , in conjunction with other information , induced your committee to believe that diplomatic correspondence , when posted in ordinary course , incurred in , this country aud in the other great states of Europe nearly equal risk of inspection . How long similar warrants continued , and when they ¦ Wer e -finafly "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 tliis they are satisfied , that no such warrants or practices now exist and that pnblic as well as private correspond ence , foreign as well as domestic , passing through the office in _-rej-nilar course , now enjoys complete

      securitv , subject" only to the contingency of a Secretary oi State ' s warrant , directed for special reasons against a particoJar letter ov letters . "Certain warrants were laid __ before your committee "—these are the warrants in the time of Fox 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 ofthe repor t , 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 along period of time , and under many successive Administrations , been an established practice thatthe foreign correspondence offoreignMiniste _« , nassinKthTOUB :

      htheGeneralPostoffiee _, should be sent to a department of the Foreignoffice before the forwarding of such correspondence according to its _address . The Postmaster-General having had his attention called to the fact that there was no sufficient authority for the practice , has since June discontinued it altogether . " Only " since June ! " the very time that I made my statement to -the House . ( Cheers . ) Why , this report ought to _putouromimittceto the blush when they read that paragraph . ( Hear , hear . ) It is an unworthy quibble , -that no suchpracticcs " now exist ;" -it is most disingehnons . ( Hear . ) But what must foreign powers now think ofthis 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 , inl 611 , withregardtotheVenetian Ambassador , who complained of his letters being opened ? You find it on the Lords' Journals on the 12 th of Novem ber , 1641 : — "The Lord Keeper signified to the House , 'that the Venetian Ambassador made a complaint to the Lords of the 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 this he hath retired himself from the public aflairs , as an ambassador between this _Idngdom and that

      state-until he receives further commands from his masters . ' Then was read a paper , being a -transla tion ont 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 interest of maintaining of estates , and of continuance of commerce to the benefit and increase of the commonwealth . To cultivate this , the most great king hath always used the most industry ; and to facilitate it , they have introduced the expedition of ambassadors to _co-sfirm it betwixt the one and thc other kingdom . _Inthis there hath been all respect rendered to all princes even in all times , not only having made the large prerogatives and liberties , and the

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

      Vane , npon whose honour they secured me that it was a simple error , and 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 the laws , and to give an example to the world so damnable , and of so little respect towards the Minister of the Serenissima , Respublica , wliich , after so many ages , hath given a sincere testimony of affection and esteem to this Crown . So now new experience , with my mortification , Lath given testimony of the contrary being yesterday all the letters were opened coming from ! Venice , Antwerpe , and other countries , apd the "very letters writ unto me from

      the Serenissima Respublica , the regal seal being broken , and the commission sent from my lords being published , and many of my own letters being taken . " Tie-Lords thought the _ambasssador had very properly designated it , a "damnable example "—( cheers ) , and they agreed that satisfaction should be made to im , and to the state of Venice , and that the action should be disavowed , "astending tothe breach of pnblic iaith , and the law of nations . " Why , Sir , it would serve us quite right , if every one of those great powers , whose letters we have opened , were to call for an apology ; and we 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 Jnnelasi . ( Hear , hear . ) Butnow 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 _manufeetoring and mining districts , which took place in August , 1 S 42 , in the week of the greatest anxiety , a clerk was sent down from the London Post-ofiice , with directions , -under the authority of a Sccretary of State ' s warrant , "to open the letters of six parties named therein , aU taking a prominent part in the disturbances of that period . Lathe same week the ihe same clerk was directed , under authority of two

      other _sucn warrants , to open the letters ol ten other persons named , and a fortnight later to open the letters of one other person ; making seventeen in all . Most of the persons whose letters were ordered on this occasion to be opened-were indicted , and many both indicted and convicted , before the special commission appointed to try the parties concerned _, in those disturbances . With one exception , " these warrants were issued between the 18 th : and 25 th of August , 1842 , 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 . But it goes on , " It is these facts , probably , thathave 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 flunk it is just " probable . " ( A laugh . ) They _caR my statement " a report" for wliich 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 particular town , bat to " the manufacturing and mining districts , " for the purpose of opening letters . I said _IJL-T that the Right Hon . Gentleman had exercised this power In fill unusual _mannw , _•™ T 1 , f ? _r _E _"Eonse , can they produce , in the r _% _* « ssoak of " _-. iniquitous letter-opening system , one single precedent of this species of roving commission ? ( Hear , hear . ) Can you produce any precedent of persons

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

      "to open the letters of six parties named therein . " Arethey-etterB written or received ? How are you to asceriainaman ' shandwri-fcmgif they are letters writ ten . _"Thereisgreatsimilmityinhandwiting . Theclerk sees a letter ; " 0 , Mr . So-and-so has written this letter and I wiU 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 thc disturbances which took place in South Wales , two clerks were sent down -from the post-office info the disturbed districts , with directions , under authority of a warrant from the Secretary of State , at

      one to inspect the letters of one person 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 thc letters of 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 the last charge . I stated that my conrespondence had been violated and civ letters opened . - ( Hear , hear . ) Now , -upon this the committee arepe feetly silent . I had ooly been -informed that m _** « v . _tpgoing to the

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      Albany had been-detained for-the purpose ofopening : 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 ofthe 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 _ftuthftr , if -my cowespond-nee is not to he 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 can , 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 juStifification upon which he ordered my letters to be opened . I asked him before and he talked about my " vapouring . " 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 Memberin _hisplace asks the Ri g ht Hon . Baronet whether , in the exercise of his tunctions , he has opened that Member ' s letters , and he finds that that Secretary of State , while he has had the meannessaye , and the baseness , to commit the act , has not had the courage to avow it . —( Great cheering . ) The _Spbakeb . —Those observations appear to be of a personal nature . Jf the Hon . . ' Member has made those observations in his placepersonally to the Right Hon . Gentleman opposite , the Hon . Gentleman no doubt will be glad of the opportunity to withdraw them . ¦ - ' . ' .

      Mi * . _Doxcomue . —Sir , I apphed 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 the room up stairs . -They are totally and entirely silent upon it . They have not done me the same justice ( bad and small as that justice _*[ is ) as they have done tothe 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 hi ; 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 onthe subject : —[ The article stated that any Cabinet , and particularly a Whig Cabinet , was branded with infamy and dishonour if it opened thc letters of a Member of Parliament . 1 ' This is your own orcan .

      which says of opening the letters of a Member of Parliament " that nothing short of an extreme case could possibly justify it . " That is the statement of the Morning Herald . " Itstempsany 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 warrant of the Secretary of State , to open the letters 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 of this House to be opened , except by the warrant of the Secretary of State . I say that

      very resolution justifies me in putting that question to the Right Hon . Baronet in reference to my letters ; because , if he has not issued the 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 tliis practice . If there is any doubt in the House about it , there is none out of doors . ( Hear , hear . ) It becomes the more necessary to have this report , because in his place in the House of Lords , the First Lord of tbe Admiralty ( Lord Haddington ) stated on the 25 thof June—; " Your lordships will admit that this is a power which has not only existed in this country in all times , butit is one which must always exist in every country that has a Government at ali . " So Lord Haddington says there 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 tins power . I say that the safety of England does not require the protection of such means as this ; but 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 wliich letters have been detained , opened , and re-sealed , at the General or at any provincial Post-office , and also into the circumstances under which eveiy warrant for that purpose has been issued by any Secretary of State , from the first day of January , 1840 , to the present time ; the said committee to report their opinion thereon to the House , and also whether it is expedient that the practice should be 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 James 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 inquiry into the proceedings of the Postoffice . He had himself declared his readiness , if released from his oath of office by his Sovereign , to disclose every order wliich he had issued in connection with the Post-office . He analysed the constitution of the committee which had examined into Mr . Duncombe ' 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 been 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 , Duncombe thought fit to condemn him either upon mere _sus-E icion , or upon information collected he knew not ow , 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 the House of Lords , where he had been examined as to his conduct upon oath , and both committees had acquitted him of any excess in the exercise ofthe

      prerogative of his office . Mr . Buncombe was under a gross mistake as to the abolition of what he called A" ? " oecret-omce /* at St . _iviariin s-Ie-g ? and _, A secret office , connected with the Foreign Departineiit ofthe 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 opening of 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 cast by Mr . Buncombe on the present Government that it had assisted thc 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 his conduct in opening the letters of certain Polish refugees , and implored the House to consider what his responsibility would have been had any attempt , which he could have prevented , been made on the life of the Emperor of Russia whilst on a visit in this country . He did not

      believethat any further inquiry could beproductive of any advantage . The real practical question was , whether the House would revoke thc power which had been given to every Secretary of State since the reign of Queen Anne , to open private letters in case of 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 ior any Secretary of State to exercise it with advantage to the public service , if be 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 . Sheil then rose and said—My observations shall be very short , and I hope very temperate . Thc Right Hon . Baronet has unequivocally admitted that the letters addressed to Mr . Mazzini were opened , and that the substance of the information derived from those letters was communicated to a foreign power . " The substance of the info ' raiation , " the report says ; and the statement of the Right Hon . Baronet is almost more than confirmatory of that report . The 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 of

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      raising that question * by bringing the subject before " the House aud the country oil another and a more appropriate occasion . But there stands the broad fact-rthat 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 to have informed Mv . 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 , was continued ; and the substance of the information obtained from Mr . Mazzini ' s letters was communicated to a foreign nower

      The committee state that "the facts ofthe 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 _themsalvfis at liberty to disclose . ( Hear , hear ) . I do not mean to say that the committee of secrecy appointed under such peculiar circumtances were 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 vcri is admitted . ( Hear , hear . ) No w ,-I want to know why there is notliing 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 m 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 , Maizini . ( 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 liim . ( 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 the Home Department was first interrogated upon the subject lie refused to give any answer . He sheltered himself behind his official privileges . ( 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 be conceded , that which was at first withheld . ( Cheers . ) A committee was granted . A great fact—the fact of all others the most important—the' opening ofthe letters of ia Member of Parliament , has not been reported on by that committee . ( Cheers . ) The charge was made . * Now , I ask the question —( cheers)—now _^ Iask the question ( repeated the Ri ght Hon . Gentleman with great vehemence ,, amidst loud cheers from the Hon . Gentlemen behind him)—tell me , you who answer with regard to Mr . Mazzinitell mc , you who answer with respect to the Polestell me , will you answer whether you opened the letters of Mi * . Duncombe ? ( Great cheering . ) Lord Sandon rose amidst some cries of " Question . "

      He said , —My back was turned when the Right Hon . Gentleman put liis question ; will he oblige me by repeating it ? Mr . Sheim , ( with considerable vehemence ) . —It is not of the Noble Lord , it is of the Right Hon . Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department that I _atk thc question , and I repeat my interrogatory . ( Loud cheers , and cries for Sir James Graham , amidst which)—Lord Sandon resumed his seat , but the Noble Lord almost immediately rose again and proceeded to address the House , though the noise that prevailed rendered several of his observations but indistinctly audible . His Lordship said , that as far as he could understand , the question of the Right Hon . Gentleman had been addressed to the Right Hon . Gentleman

      thc Secretary of State for the Home Department , ( Cheers . ) At the same time , as the Right Hon . Gentleman the Secretary of State for thc Home Department did not think it consistent with his duty ( cries of Oh , oh ! from the Opposition , and uproar ) then to answer thc question , he ( Lord Sandon ) thought it then became his duty , as chairman of thc 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 !) The House by appointing a secret committee recognized the principle that there was something in the nature of the subject which required that everything that there transpired should not be made known to the public . ( Hear ; and Oh- !) It was a

      committee of secrecy , aiid of course the members oi it , till they were released from then obligation , could not disclose the particulars of the different cases whicli had come before it , nor justify fully the report which they had made . They must therefore trust to thoir 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 him the question wliich 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 hhn ; and he must therefore at once decline to gratify such prurient curiosity . Sir J . Graham observed that , when he was interrogated upon this 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 hjs political opponents . There was no one fact whieh 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 Mr . 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 distinctionketween the cases ofthe two foreigners and the other cases whicli had been alluded to .

      Mr . Hume commended the discretion ' of Sir J . Graham in not replying to the interrogatory wliich 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 ofthe committee ought to haye 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 John Hanmei . thought that no imputation rested at present on the character of Sir James Graham ; but he had heard with some surprise Mr . Duncombe ' s statement that liis letters had been submitted to investigation by tho 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 countiy , 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 information for them whenever they came to the consideration-of a question with whicli they must soon deal , namely , whether it'be

      desirable or ndt 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 , and he should vote for such inquiry . Mr . Serjeant _Monrar was convinced , that notwithstanding the reasons which Sir James Graham had just given for his silence , the impression made on the countiy by that silence would be veiy 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 lie 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 oiDy have been prevented from conducting his own ease , 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 the report of the committee of secresy froni the remarks which had been made

      to it * _aiscTcdit , 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 , thc 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

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      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 by 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 that 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 iu time either of external attack or of internal disorder . The Hon . Gentleman opposite had condemned Sir J . Graham for issuing seventeen or eighteen of these warrants

      in August , 1 S-2 ; 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 . some day in the month of October , on the express ground that the countiy was in danger of civil confusion . Tho 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 ho extraordinary powers ; but what would Parliar ment have said to them if in that time of " dire confusion" they had displayed apath y and indifference ? Would not Parliament , in case of danger , have held Ministers responsible for the non-exercise of that very nower 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 wliich there wasa majority of tlieir 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 _lnaide 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 propriety of not implying suspicion of their committee , and of the Ministers whom that committee had acquitted , by subjecting them to a second trial .

      Mr . Warbukion justified , at considerable length , the report of the committee , of which he had been a member . In considering the question , whether ij ; was advisable to grant to -Mr . Duncombe the committee for which . he had moved , he observod 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 of 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 _o'fthat House , placed a petition in his hands , wherein he complained tlmt his letters had been opened atthe Post-office , and asked for redress in the ibrm of a petition to that House . And when the Right Hon . Baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) was applied to for information as to the truth ofthe facts alleged by one individual , the same Mr . Mazzini who had petitioned , lie turned round on being questioned with respect to Stolzman , and said " if you will give me

      notice of the sort of information you seek , I will sec 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 which proceeding would , he trusted , afford a lesson to the House not to act in a similar manner on a futftre occasion , for tho whole proceeding was merely a whitewashing of tho Government . ( Hear , 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 wliich 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 tho House . He had at first simply presented a petition from Mr . Mazzini , complaining that his letters were opened , and praying for redress . The report of thc committee made no allusion whatever to his Hon . Colleague . He had not been called before the committee , nor had he been allowed to conduct the case , which was the direct cause of its being appointed , and which case he had brought before the notice of the House . His Hon . Colleague , however , brought a fresh allegation to the attention ofthe 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

      Post-office . 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 the name of the Queen had been introduced in a most extraordinary and unprecedented manner by him in order to shield him tioinmaking any disclosures of his acts . ( Hear , hear . ) This course of observation was quite new to him ( Mr . Wakley . ) Hehad always understood _^ b y the practice ofthe constitution , that the responsibilities of the Sovereign rested solely upon the Ministers according to the established maxim , " the King can do ao wrong , " ( Hear , hear , ) which meant that the Crown could do nothing witliout the immediate agency , and consequently the entire responsibility of Ministers .

      By whose advice , therefore , was the Crown in the present case induced to absolve Ministers from their oaths of secresy , if it was not by the direct counsel ot the Right Hon . Baronet liimself ? ( Hear , hear . ) And upon whom rested the responsibility of that proceeding , if not upon the Right Hon . Baronet ? ( Hear , hear . ) The subterfuge was a most unworthy one . lt was most highly improper ; it was most unconstitutional for the 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 Hon . Colleague repeated the charge , and had asserted hi terms not to be misunderstood that the Right Hon . Baronet had caused his letters to be opened , that Right . Hon . Baronet had not denied thc truth of his

      allegation , but bad left the matter entirely unanswered . Thc Right Hon . Baronet , the First Lord of the Treasury , had however come forward and made out an affected justification of 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 in 1842 the whole country was in a 6 tate of tumult aud agitation ; that sedition and disaffection were imputed to the people in many districts : that the 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 thc masses put in motion being then made , had rendered it most necessaiy 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 thc Right Hon . Secretary for the Home Department . ( No . no . ) He could only put that interpretation

      upon the language of the Right Hon . Baronet . ( No , no , from the Ministerial benches . ) Yes , he put the same construction upon it that the House had done already . ( No , no . ) No—why , the meaning of tho 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 lion . Baronet , the Secretary for the Home Department , was a favourite subject with liim . Mi * . Duncombe always tried thought the hig hest game the most attractive . He occasionally attacked the judges ; and the Right Hon . Baronet had said on a former occasion , that lus Hon . colleague was justified in calling liimself 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 liis letters detained and opened , a course which the Right Hon . Baronet had stated to have been followed , under official responsibilities , which neither he ( Mr . Wakley ) nor anybody else could discover ? What was that responsibility m which thc Right Hon : Baronet ' s official character was so deeply implicated ? Was the 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 castin" on an individual Member who charged tliem 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 , _r-nllpaffue's letters been opened ? The Right Hon .

      Baronet was bound , it he denied this inierence , 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 o 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 be sealed up again , and sealed in such a manner as that no one should know they had been so opened . But he would not go further into the particulars of these cases . Whether the power , when it came to be examined into , could be maintained or not , was net now the question . ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . colleague had stated that his letters had been opened . A Member of that House alleged in his place that " his letters

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      had been opened by the Secretary of State for the Home Department ; and the answerof that Secretary in point of fact was , he coidd 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 . Brotherton moved ah acyournment of the debate till'Thursday , which was put and agreed to . The House adjourned at twenty minutes to one o ' clock . Wednesday , Feb . 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 ahd _' Staleybridge , the Manchester and Leeds ( Burnley branch ) , the Leeds and West Riding Junction / and the Richmond . In the cases of petitions for the following bills it was reported that the standing orders had been complied with , and the parties petitioning obtained leave to bring in their respective bills : —The Hull and Selby Railway , the Kendal and Windermere Railway , the . Cheshire and Birkenhead Railway , tho Cockcrmouth and Workington Ratiway , the Manchester and Carlisle Railway , and Leeds and Dewsbury Railway . In answer to a question from Mr . M . Milnes , Sir R . Peei , 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 tho Austrian Government , complaining that these refugees were conspiring against the peace of Italy , and intimating that , if an insurrection should break out in the Papal States , the Commander in Chief at Milan had received instructions to march at once for the purpose of sup pressing 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 nanies , letters , or copies of letters , or extracts of letters , from any individuals residing within the power ofthe Austrian Government . With respect to the descent upon

      Calabria , 'Lord Aberdeen had communicated no information , for he had none—tho event itself haying 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 thc British authorities , and when the Austrian authorities asked Lord Seaton to send an armed steamer in pursuit of them , lie refused to do so , contenting himself with sending to Otranto to communicate the fact to the Neapolitan Government . Subsequently a formal complaint was made to our ambassador at Vienna , thatthe British Government were affording shelter to parties concerting plots to disturb the tranquillity of Italy . ' This , he thought , was sufficient to relievo thc British Government from the groundless

      imputations which had been thrown out against it . Mr . Ferraxd wished to put the question to the Right Hon . Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department of which he had given notice yesterday . He desired to know when the report of Mr . Moggeridge , who h | td been 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 tho table ? Sir J . GiunAM said , it was true ' that Mr . Moggeridge had conducted the inquiry to which the Hon . Member referred . That inquiry was noAV closed : thc report had been drawn up , but had not yet reached him . When it came into his possession he should take the earliest opportunity or laying it on the table .

      The House resolved itself into a committee of ways and means . After the resolution of Sir R . Peel , and Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment , which adds to _itjjtlxeseo words , " That the provisions of the-said tax _^ s-1 property should extend to Ireland , " had been read , Mi * . Roebuck commenced his observations by calling on Sir Robert Peel to point out the reasonsfor the onus lay upon him—which induced him to deviate in the case of Ireland from the rule which governed his conduct in the case of England , Scotland , and Wales . He had said that 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 to show that the circumstances of Ireland were such as to satisfy him in deviating from his general rale . 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 the 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 R . Peel had originally refused

      to impose this tax on the land of Ireland , because he had increased the stamp duties in that country . Now , stamps being chiefly used in the transfer of property , fell 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 . At the 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 not submit to thcimposition ofthe income tax ? 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 the idea wliich 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 . ne 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 pusillanimously shrank from the battle-field in that house , where they must know that their battle must be fought , because from their own personal insignificance they could not command its attention . ' He adjured Sir R . Peel , the agricultural and the mercantile interests , not to sanction the extra taxation of England for the untaxed landlords of Ireland . Ho 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 aJittle too bad . He would endeavour to remedy such a state of tilings by imposing thc property tax , wliich they deemed so advantageous , upon their shoulders : at the same time lie wished it to be understood that he would exempt the income derived from the trade , commerce and professions of that country from its operation .

      Mr . Sheil observed , that as Mr . Roebuck had always expressed great solicitude for Ireland , he was almost inclined to say , "God save it from his friendship ! " After stating the reasons which had induced several Irish members to abstain from attending in their places in that house , and after declaring , amid loud cheers , that he had not felt it consistent with his duty to ' follow the example of his absent friends , he addressed himself to the consideration of the different proposals of Mr , _Warbiirton and Mr . Roebuck on the subject of the income and property tax . "Perpetuity , " cried the one ; " Universality , " cried the other . " Eternity , " said the 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 . Ills scheme of equality , therefore , fell at onco 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 nc would recommend him to read the speech of the eloquent defender of thc Canadas ( Mr . Roebuck ) , in which admirable precepts were laid down for the mode in which England ought to govern that countiy—precepts which lie 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 anil oi Windsor Castle ; and Mr . Roebuck , with aknowledge of both these facts before him , proposed to exhaust it still more by draining from it the amount of the income tax . He believed it to be unjust to impose this tax on Ireland—at any rate he knew it to be impolitic . With a full recollection of thc disturbance which Wood ' s halfpence created in Ireland in the time of Swift , would they ami Mr . O'Connell , a second Swift , with sueh 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 ofthe state of that country . He warned them against any measure which would make Catholicism , Protestantism , and Prcsbyterianism 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 proper ty 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 peace . 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-

      Prehensive Nature, Have, In Conjunction ...

      land will repay , with magnificent usury , even * etfni + you may make for her improvement . ' Sir John Tyrrell made a short speech in favour of the amendment / which created much amusement in the committee . He repeated liis complaint tW the agricultural interest had not received any relief from Sir R . Peel ' s proposed measure of reduced _tiv ation ; and remarked , that it was a singular fact that gentlemen on the Opposition benches supported tW RightHon . Bart , upon the voluntary , whilst < rontio men on the Ministerial benches supported him n the compulsory , principle . He hoped that when h » read the division list to-morrow , he should find that his agricultural friends , who complained so much _rf the treatment which they received fromGoverm-w had not gone "about ship , " but had nven III- ' votes in favour of Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment Mr . _'W . Williams declared his intention lfm „

      porting the amendment m a speech in which € shewed that since the union the relative _taxitbL « Ireland towards that of Great Britain had _coShL ally diminished , till now , inthc last financial vot- * _rt taxation levied on Ireland was only . (• 4 , 097 000 wVi that on Great _Rritain amounted to £ 51 300 ( inn He then entered into a review of Sir R . p p d _^ cial speech , and concluded by _declaring that _wh Mi * . Roebuck ' s amendment was disposed of _hewni-n propose another , to the effect that all persons vecZ ing public money in Ireland should pay thereon thi same income tax as was levied in England He _« no reason why tho Lord Lieutenant , " the i _^ Z Chancellor , and the Chief Secretary foi Leh / i should be exempt from a tax on their lame saliw because they were paid in Ireland , which Ivory C S in the public offices here was obliged to pav _LjE because he received his small pittance of the m ill money in England . . l m

      Mr . Ross , Lord _Berxard , and Mr . _Bfti-cw , i » fended the Irish landlords from the attack wh £ had been made upon them by the Hon . Member 8 Bath A smart and somewhat angry discuwfZ ensued , 111 thc courae of whicli the _woixk- _'S calumnies" were used by Mr . Newdi"ato who « being called to order , apologised to the Hou * . % _len-Tth Sir R . Peel rose , and admitted that , _although strict justice might require the extension of £ tax to Ireland , yet as there was no -machinery ft , its collection 111 that countiy , the creation of Z machmcrywoud be so expensive , that the Govcn _, ment would not be justified , in an economical pok Of view , m proposing * ts creation therefore , lie con sidercd that it would be better to accept from _Ireky an equivalent for thc property tax . _Ld . nr . _™™ .. ; ™

      thc benefit wluoh would accrue to England from tlm removal of the import duties with that which would accrue to Ireland ; the latter country would not le justly dealt with if the property tax were Imposed on The discussion was continued for some tim _» if « . the Right Hon . Gentleman had sat down Mr ' s _» geant Murphy , Mr . Wallace , - Colonel Sibthorn ' _lorf _Palmerston , and several other Hon . Members _takiiw part in it ; after which the Committee divided when there appeared for the amendment 33 , a « am _<* t ' it 9 T 5 The Committee then divided on the original mo " lntion , affirming thc income-tax , when there _amiwimi for it 228 , against it 30 . yi m The other orders of the day were then disposed of and the House adjourned at one o ' clock . '

      Plte Hxttllwmt

      _plte _hxttllwmt

      "Bow-Stbeet, Tceboat.—Inhuman Conduct Of...

      _"BOW-STBEET _, _Tceboat . —Inhuman Conduct of Pahexts . —Matthew Parris , a trunk-maker , and Ann . liis wife , were placed at the bar , before Mr . Jardine , charged under the Vagrant Act ( 5 th Geo . IV ., chap . S 3 , sec . 3 ) , at the instance of tin guardians ofthe Strand Union , with wilfully refusing and neglecting to maintain tlieir three children , being able wholly or in part so to do , in consequence of which they became chargeable to the parish . —Mr . Corder _, clerk to ' . he guardians , said the male _defendant had worked tor years in the service of Mr . Hawkins , trunk-maker in the Strand , receiving twenty sliillings " as wages , and his wife usuallj earned about eight shillings per week in jobbing among families in the neighbourhood , while the eldest son handed over to them eight shillings per week , which he received in Ilungerford-market _, where he was employed , and the eldest girl the sum of four shillings , which ' she made by

      shoe-binding . The shocking condition in which they kept the younger members-of the family , at 10 , New Churcii . court , Strand , would be explained by gentlemen present , who discovered them in going their rounds to visit the poor and dispense charity , and also by the children who could prove that they had daily experienced the same treatment during thc last three years . —Mr . John Limbh'd , 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 on entering _Xo . 19 he proceeded 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 , ami discovered three children huddled together in it behind a mr , without any other covering upon them . The day was very inclement ; and , on looking closer , he saw that * the little creatures had rags npon them wliich reached dowmmerel j tO the hips . Oil questioning the woman she admitted they

      __ 1 were her children , adding that no person had been in the cellar except witness andthegentleman who accompaiiM him , and that the children had not been out of it _tiieethe month of August last . She also said that the dooms always fastened when the lodgers went down for water , and that her husband , who was for gone in a consumption , had gone to the King ' s College Hospital , of which _hc-na-s an out-patient , for the purpose of procuring medicine and advice . As to the state in which he found the cellar , il would be impossible to give a correct description , for it was in a worse condition than any stable he had ever put his foot in . —The male defendant said that when inquiries were made of liim he told the truth to the _g uardians , and if his family appeared in a sta _+ e of destitution it was broughton by the intemperate habits of his wife , but he never allowed liis children to want food , although lie was unable to wash them , being obliged to attend to liis work . —The defendants were remanded . .

      SOUTHWARK . Monday , —Dbeaoful Effects of Drink . —Elizabeth Blake , the wife of a hatter in the Spa-road , Bennomlsev , was brought before Mr . Traill , charged with atteniptini * to destroy sherelf by cutting her throat with a knife . The prisoner of late had been subject to very violent fits of passion , which were increased bv habits of _inobi-iotv . Oa Saturday last she had been for some hours from home , and on her return became excited , and , snatcliiiwr up a knife , fell on her knees and drew it across her throat , inflicting a wound . Her landlady , on observing the act ; immediately screamed out , and at the same time rushed towards the prisoner , and seized her arm , which she endeavoured to disengage , and she was about to repeat the attempt upon her life , when her husband , alarmed by the noise , entered the room , and seeing what was goin _; forward , tried to wrest the knife from the prisoner / The

      latter , however , made every resistance that was in her power , and repeatedly attempted to draw the knife again across her throat , aiid in the effort made bv her husband to obtain possession of the weapon his hands were very 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 and gave her into custody . The injury she inflicted on herself » as found on . investigation not to be of such a . dangerous nature as was at _tirst-supposed . The witness added , tha ' the prisoner had attempted to commit suicide twine before while in her house , and that witness had no doubt it was produced from her habits of intoxication , for her husband was industrious , and there was no want of the common necessaries of life . The prisoner ' s husband , ulttougn aware of the situation in which his wife was placed , uiu _notjjnttend , and she was accordingly committed in derau » of finding the required sureties .

      LAMBETH . ,, Mondat . — -Assaulting the Police . —Jolm _*| _Kern _lnc _, alias Wri ght , and Joseph Purdy , were charged , the former with violently assaulting a police-constable , and the latter with attempting to rescue him from the cust ody of tne police .. From the evidence it appenved th : _vt at a late hour on Saturday night the prisoner Kemble , who about thw weeks since was charged at this court with murdering _u own mother , was found righting with another person «' Lambeth-walk , whom he severely punished . On tbe i _' _"" _' ties being separated , Kemble was given into custody _jtf his opponent , and on the constable _taUinj- ; hold of 'V _*? . declared he would go quietly to the station-house it tn constable relinquished his hold . Thc officer did so , tlm" *; ing he would do as he had promised , but instead oi tna he attempted to make his escape , and upon being j " taken , he commenced a desperate attack on the const ble , and Purdy endeavoured to rescue him . Two otn « brothc

      constables came up to the assistance of then * : officer ; and Kemble , after dealing out severe punisnmw to the man who seemed him , kicked another in the mosavage manner in a delicate part of his person , ami , j > for the ' mail ' s activity , would have ruined lumio- _'M * Tbe prisoner "Kemble said , in reply to the _ehtirgft »•* f had been drinking rather freely , and was not con _^ _wr _\„ what he did ; and Purdy-denied much of what ha _* . ° _T ; sworn to by the constables . Mr , Norton _( _addr-SU * Kemble ) observed , that one would have thought that Wf fact of his having been in custody and remanded on suspicion of having caused the death of his own inotliWi though lie might be , and was , he thought , innocent of jM dreadful crime , would have worked some favouiw _- change in his conduct , and taught him to know and a * better . The policemen had acted with great forbearance towards him , yet his conduct was both brutal and violent ) and that of his companion was very little better . _» BhouM _, therefore , commit them both for one month to th * House of Correction with hard labour _.

      CLERKEN"WELL . Monday . — Infamous Conduct . —David Dumy was charged with the following heartless conduct : —About three weeks ago a poor girl , about 18 years of age , iia , n , Mary Beckwith , who had been a servant at the house ot a gentleman in _Burton-crescent , was returning to her master ' s house after spending the day with" some friends , when she was met by the prisoner , who induced her to drink with _hirru He drugged her with liquor , and conveyed _»< to a lodging-house , where , under promise of marriage , ne seduced her . Next morning he endeavoured to quiet w mind by promising marriage , but at the same time assure- * her he was a soldier , and wanted 25 s . to buy himself ¦ f _^ She borrowed the money from her friends for hini , but M few days after he absconded , taking with Mm box _« _^' t _.-iining every article of clothing the poor girl possesse On inquiry the prisoner , who has been at different perio' - of his life a soldier , a policeman , and a cabman , tiirne out to be married , and his wife was in court . It "irl ' . ? _S appeared , that when about to be apprehended he pu » out two pistols and a sword , and threatened to muvder n if she dared to say anything against him . —He was manded .

      'Rintedby "Dougal M'Gowan, Of .17, Great )Viadn«F;

      ' rintedby "DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of . 17 , Great ) Viadn « f ;

      , Xinymarnei;, In Wie Vity 01 H.Bi ^'- O...

      , _xinymarnei ; , in wie _vity 01 h . bi _^ ' - Office in the same Street and Parish , for the y ' ' ' prietor , FEARGUS O'CONNOR , Esq ., and published ° . "William Hewitt , of No . 18 , Charles-street , Brando street , Walworth , in the P avish of St . Mar )' , K _« wn « _- ton , in the County of Surrey , at the Office , _$ " _¦' Strand , hv the Parish of St . Mary-le-Strand i" •• City of -Westminster Saturday , Febuary 22 , 1 P 15-

  • 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/ns3_22021845/page/8/