On this page

• Departments (3)
  • 
  • 
  • 
• Text (5)

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

  • 

    S THE NORTHERN STAR. >> ¦ Febbuaby 22, 1...

  • 

    f ' i -S* .' !!

  • 

    Molict Mtillwmt

  • 

    rnnieaDy ifuutrAJj ia «u<»-n.il, o* 11, «.»<*•- ,.51 street in the ofWestimnster ¦ 1 " ¦ ¦ ¦--»-¦ ¦¦-¦¦-¦¦ - ¦¦ .rt Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of 17, Great Wind"^

  • 

    Dy ifuutrAJj «u<»-n., o* , «.»<*•- ,. st...

• 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.

    House Of Commons, Monday, Feb. 17. The H...

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

    security , subject only to the contingency of a Secretary of State ' s warrant , directed for special reasons against a- particular letter or 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 of the report , or twenty hours . But what a quibble is here for we find in the Lords' report what makes this sentence most important . "It appears , " savs the Lords' committee , **• ' to have for a long period of time , and under many successive Administrations , been an established _practice thatthe foreign correspondence offoreignMinisters , passing through the GeneralPostoffice , should be sent to a department of the _Foreign-, office 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 lhe House . ( Cheers . ) Why , this report ought to put our committee to the blush when they read that paragraph . ( Hear , hear . ) It is an unwortiry quibble , that no such practices " now exist ; " it is most disingenuous . _( _Heai-. ) But what must foreign powers now think oFtbis system of your opening _thcirJetters ? Why , suppose they should take the trouble to read what occurred in the House of Lords some years back , when , nnder the authority ofa committee appointed by both Houses of Parliament , the letters of persons suspected of treason were opened . What happened then , in JCM 1 , withregardtothe Venetian Ambassador , who complained of his letters being opened ? You find it on the Lords' Journals on the 12 tli of

    November , 1 G 41 : — " The Lord keeper signified to the House , * that the Venetian Ambassador made a complaint to the Lords of the Council , that the dispatches whieh 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 ifc , and for this he hath retired himself from the public affairs , as an ambassador between this kingdom and that State until' he receives further commands from Ids masters . ' Then was read a _' papcr , being a translation out of Italian , delivered from the Venetian Ambassador . The contents was this , viz ., 'Most noble _jLokIs , the correspondency betwixt princes there hath always been the most immediate ways of a time interest of _maintainins of estates , and of continuance

    of commerce to the benefit and _inci-ease of ihe commonwealth . To cultivate this , the most great king hath alwaysused the most industry ; and to facilitate it , they have introduced the expedition of mnhassadors to eoafirm it betwixt the one and the other kingdom . In this 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 ) _thevery princes and patrons possessing the same dominions amongst tiie remarkable and equally necessary ; and tliat by whicli we may receive letters , and send from the proper prince , and whatsoever person , without any interruption , which is the most principal part of an ambassador ; which practice , most noble sirs , is not the laws of our nation alone , but universal , and hath been

    maintained and inviolated of the King and the pubhc , and of all 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 France to me directed , although they were restored by mv Lord Feilding and Sir Henry Vane , npon whose honour they secured me tliat 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 Scrcnissima Respublica , which , after so many

    ages , nath given a sincere testimony of affection and esteem to this Crown . So now new experience , with my mortification , hath given testimony of the contrary being yesterday all the letters were opened coining froml Venice , Antwerpe , and other countries , and tiie very letters writ unto me from the Sercnissima Respublica , the regal seal being broken , and the commission sent from my lords being published , and many of my own letters being taken . " The Lords thought the ambasssador had very properly designatedit , a _"damna-sle example" —( cheers ) , and they agreed that satisfaction should he made to in , and to the state of Venice , and thatthe action should he disavowed , " as tending to the breach of public faith , and the law of nations . " Why , Sir , it would serve us quite right if every one of those great

    powers , whose letters wc have opened , were to call for an apology ; and wc should be obliged to make it . I say it has been a most infamous system , aud is a disgrace to England . ( Loud cheers . ) I am glad-to find that it does " not exist now , " though it only ceased existing in June last . ( Hear , hear . ) 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 nianufacturing and mining districts , which took place in August , 1 S 42 , in the week of the greatest anxietv , a clerk was sent down from fhe London Post-olhce , with directions , under the authoritv ofa Secretary

    of State ' s warrant , to open the letters of six parties named therein , all taking a prominent part in the disturbances of that period . In the same week the tis same clerk was directed , nnder authority of two other such _wan-ahls , to open the letters often 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 l 4 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 , that have given rise to the report of a commission or commissions having visited the manufacturing districts charged with a general authority to open and inspect letters . " 1 think it is just " probable . " ( A laugh . ) They call my statement "areport" for which there is no foundation ; a sort of vague rumour ; as if I had dreamt it—as if this was not a roving commission . Why , they do not say the clerk was sent to a particular town , but to "the manufacturing and mining districts , " for the purpose of opening letters . I said before , that the Right Hon . Gentleman had _exc-faked this power in an unusual manner ; and \ ask the House , can they produce , in the who _^ _amuils of this iniquitous letter-opening _sjatem , one single

    precedent of this species OI roving commission ? ( Hear , lear . ) Can yOU produce any precedent of persons _beinfi sent into the manufacturing district , or any district , for the purpose of opening letters in this manner ? I believe you cannot . I believe the practice is totally illegal—sending a man down from the Pcstrofficeto open tiie letters of So-and-so , and sec who is writing to whom . ( A laugh . ) What is the consequence ? They not only open the letters of these individuals , but they see to whom they are writing _ekewheiw , and Orders are then given to open the letters of those persons . I am not at all satisfied that they have not been opening other people ' s letters besides those six . Give me a committee , and I think you will find that tiie loners of others have been onened . arising out of this clerk ' s commission

    into the country . ( Hear , hear . ) It is rather vague "to open tiie letters of six parties named therein . " Are they letters written or received ? How are you to ascertain a man's handwriting if they are letters writ ten . There-isgre _atsimilarityinhandwiting . Theelerk sees a letter *; " 0 , Mr . So-and-so has written this letter and I will open it" After reading it he finds he had made a mistake , and says , " 1 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 tliis system f I believe that it is novel , and invented by the Right Hon . Baronet . The report went on , — "In the autumn of 1843 , during' the disturbances which took place in South Wales , two clerks were sent down from the post-office into the disturbed districts , with directions , nnder authority of a warrant _frwn the Secretary of State ,

    one to inspect the letters of one person at a particular town , the other to inspect the letters of another person at another town : and subsequently , under authority of a different warrant , this second clerk was sent to a third town , there to inspect the letters 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 ei hteen , the oilier seven days . " I say this is a most dangerous power , and those persons are not tiie 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 tw correspondence had been _"riolatedand my letters opened . - ( Hear , hear . ) Now , npon this the committee are pe fleetly silent . I had OBly been informed that m _* * * _" _* - : tis going to the

    House Of Commons, Monday, Feb. 17. The H...

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

    and numerous ; the representative , not the nominee ofa 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 fm * ther ; if my correspondence is not to be free , I am not a fit representative . ( Cheers : ) And in the name of that constituency I again call on the Right Hon . Baronet to justify , if he 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 justifi " - fication upon which he ordered my letters- to be opened . Tasked 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 Ms duty to answer . " Then , how stands that question between me and the Right Hon . Baronet ? If a Member hi his place asks the Right Hon . Baronet whether , in the exercise of his functions , 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 . ) Tho Speaker . —Those observations appear to be of a personal nature . If the Hon . Member has made those observations in his place personally to the Rig ht Hon . Gentleman opposite , the Hon . Gentleman no doubt will be glad of the opportunity to withdraw them .

    _3 h * . _DnxcoMnE . —Sn _* , I applied those observations to the Right nou . Gentleman in Ms 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 mc the same justice ( bad and small as that _justice'is ) as they have done to the Polish gentleman . They have not even stated that there was nothing to criminate me in the correspondence opened . But they knew well if they had said that , it would have been a direct censure on the Right Hon . Baronet . That is the difficulty that his committee were placed

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

    Parliament " that nothing short of an extremecase could possibly justify it . " That is the statement of the Morning Herald . " ItstampsanyCabinet , and more particularly a Whig Cabinet , with eternal infamy and dishonour to open the letters of 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 Secretory of State , to open tiie letters of a Member of Parliament is not oidy a : niisdcmeanour , 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 _vci-y resolution justifies mc in putting that question

    to the Right Hon . Baronet in rcferenceto 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 this practice . If there is any doubt hi 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 the Admiralty ( Lord Haddington ) stated on the 25 th of June— ' * Your lordships will admit that this is a power whicli has not only existed in this country in all times , butit is one which must always exist in eveiy country thathasa

    Government at all . 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 this 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 which letters have heen detained , opened , and re-sealed , at the General or at any provincial _Post-office , and also into the circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has been

    issued by any Secretary of State , from tbe first day of January , 1 S 40 , to the present time ; the said committee to report their opinion thereon to the House , and also whether it is expedient that tho 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 tbe Postoffice . He had himself declared his readiness , if released from his oath of office by his Sovereign , to

    disclose every order which he had issued in connection with the Post-office . He analysed the constitution of the committee which had examined into iii * . 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 nnder their consideration . Before them , at least , ho had had the courage to state what he had done ; and snnposing that they were prepared to acquit him of baseness or meanness , both personally and officially , he cared not one rush if Mr . Huncombe thought fit to condemn him cither upon mere suspicion , or upon information collected he knew not

    how , and given by persons he knew not whom . He eontendea that the committee liad made ft most satisfactory xemri , and that it had completely followed np 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 iu the exercise of the prerogative of his office , ill * . _Dimconilxfwas under a gross mistake as to the abolition of what he called the "Secret-office , "at St . Martin ' s-le-grand . A secret office , connected with tlie Foreign Department 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 ihe 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 . Duncombe on the present Government that it had assisted the _Neapolitan Government in entrapping the Bandeiras and their associates , and in subsequently putting them to death , and denied that either he or his noble colleague had been guilty of anything like treachery towards those unhappy persons . He also justified liis conduct in opening the

    letters of certain Polish refugees , and miplored tne House to consider what his responsibility would have been had anv attempt , which he could have pie-Tented , been made on the life of tlie Emperor of Russia whilst on a visit in this country . He did not believe that any further inquiry could beproductivc of any advantage . The real practical question was , whether the House would revoke the power whjch had been given to evcrv Secretary of State since the reign of Queen Anne , to open p rivate letters in case ef necessity , or whether they would continue _; it . If they should determine to revoke it , they had the power to do so : but if thev determined to continue it , it was impossible ior any Secretary of State to exercise it With advantage to the pu blic service , ii he were called npon to declare publicly on eveiy occasion to the House all the reasons which had induced linn to put it in force .

    Mr . Sheil then rose and said—My observations shall be very short , and I hope very temperate . The Right Hon . Baronet has unequivocally admitted that the letters addressed to Air . Mazzini were opened , and thatthe substance of the information derived from those letters was communicated to a foreign power . " The substance of the information 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

    S The Northern Star. >> ¦ Febbuaby 22, 1...

    S THE NORTHERN STAR . _>> ¦ Febbuaby 22 , 1845 .

    F ' I -S* .' !!

    f ' i -S _* . ' !!

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

    The committee state that "the facts of the case , so far as your committee feel themselves at liberty to disclose them , appear to be as follows . " It appears , then , there were facts that the committee did think themselves at liberty to disclose . ( Hear ; hear ) . 1 do not mean to say that the committee of secrecy appointed under such peculiar cireumtances wcl'C 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 a suggestio falsi , a suppressio veri is admitted . ( Hear , hear . ) _Now , I want to know why there is nothing said about the letters addressed to the Hon . Member for Finsbury . ( Cheers . ) The names of the two Poles were mentioned , the name of Mr . Mazzini was mentioned

    were those the only names specified iii the House ot Commons ? ( Cheers . ) The member for Finsbury , the representative ofa gi'eat 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 ilr . Mazzini . ( Cheers . ) His name was mentioned . Why have the committee said nothing about that name ? ( Cheers . ) The statement was repeated before the committee , who excluded Mr . Duncombe —( cheers ) , who brought the charge . ( Loud cheering . ) Mr . Duncombe offered to

    appear before the committee to conduct his case and to prove his accusation . The committee refused to allow him to conduct his ease , and I believe to hear him . ( Cheers . ) Under these circumstances , it is a matter I think of legitimate curiosity , to know what is the justification on the part of the committee for omitting all mention of Mr . Duncombe . ( Cheers . ) How stands the fact ? When the Right-Hon . Gentleman the Secretary of State for the . Home Department was first interrogated upon the subject he refused to give any answer . - He sheltered -lumself 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 , _puls-Q , wisely came down to the House and said that a committee should be conceded , that whicli was at first withheld . ( Cheers . ) A committee was granted . A great fact—the fact of all others the most important—the opening of the letters of a Member of Parliament , has not been reported on by that , committee . ( Cheers . ) The charge was made . Now , I ask the question —( cheers )—now , I ask the question ( repeated the Right Hon . Gentleman with great vehemence , amidst loud cheers from the Hon . Gentlemen behind him)—tell me , you who answer with regard to Mr . Mazzinitell me , you who answer with respect to the Polestell me , will you answer whether you opened the letters of Mi ' . Duncombe ? ( Great cheering . ) i

    Lord Sandon rose amidst some cries of " Question . " He said , —My back was turned when the Right Hon . Gentleman put his question , * will he oblige me by repeating it ? ! All * . Shehj . ( 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 ask the question , and I repeat iny 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 ef his observations but _^ distinctly 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 the Secretary of State for the Home Department . ( Cheers . ) At the same time , as the Right lion . Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Pepartnient did not think it consistent with his duty ( cries of Oh , oh ! from the Opposition , and uproar ) then to answer the question , he ( Lord Sandon ) thought it then became his duty , as chairman of the secret committee that had been appointed , to make some observations . ( Continued uproar , and cries of 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 , and of course the members of it , till they were released from their obligation , could not disclose the particulars of the different cases wh ich had come before it , nor justify fully the report whicli they had made . They must therefore trust to their own characters for their defence . Still lie 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 which he had just put to Sir J . Graham , and if he ( Lord Sandon ) were to answer it , some other Member would rise and put another question to him ; and he must therefore at once decline to gratify sueh prurient curiosity . Sir J . Gkaiiam 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 npon the whole matter . A secret committee was then appointed , in which , as he had already mentioned , there was a majority of his political opponents . There was no one fact whicli he 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 whicli he had adopted last session , and should reply to the question of Mr . Sheil by stating that he could not consistently with Ms public 'duty answer any further interrogatory . He hoped it would be seen that there was a wide distinction between the cases ofthe two foreigners and the other cases which had been alluded to .

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

    Sir Jons Hasher 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 his letters had been submitted to investigation by the Secretary of State . He had no " prurient curiosity" respecting the evidence given before the secret committee—hut it concerned him , as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of a free country , that the House of Commons should examine into th at 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 which they must soon dealnamely , whether _ltjbe

    , desirable or not that the power of opening letters should be continued to the Secretaryof State . He thought that there was sufficient ground laid for a _furtlTer inquiry , either by the re-appointment of'the old committee , or by the appointment of a new one , and he should vote lor such inquiry . Mr . Serjeant _Murpht was convinced , that notwithstanding the reasons which Sir James Graham had just given for his 6 iience , the impression made ou the country by that silence would he very unsatisfactory . That impression might have been avoided had he pursued the course which was adopted some years ago , when Mr . Roebuck brought forward some veiy serious charges against individual members of that House . At first an objection was made to the

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

    of secresy from the remarks which had been made to its discredit , and reprobated in very strong terms the proposition of Mr . Hume , that the evidence taken before it -should be forthwith pubUshed . He insisted that there had been no misconduct on the part of the executive Government in the exercise of this power of opening letters . If it was wrong to exercise such power at all , the fault was not with the executive Government , but with the Parliament which had thought fit to arm it with such an instrument . Parliament had not intrusted the executive Government with such power hastily or without due deliberation . That power was under the consideration of Parliament in 1736 , and the House of Commons of that day declared that there was no peculiar sanctity in a Member of Parliament ; for it passed a

    F ' I -S* .' !!

    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 bf a Secretary of State . In 1145 this power was exercised by Ministers as friendly to ciyil liberty as any which this country ever possessed . In 1837 the House was party to an Act of Parliament expressly recognizing the existence of tliis 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 refu pc to exercise it in 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 , 184 a ; nut _nauiiion . _iviemoers iorgoucn the state of disturbance in whicli some parts ofthe country were at that period ? The Member for Wolverhampton at that time made a motion limiting the prorogation of Parliament to someday in the month bf October , on the express ground that the country was in danger of civil confusion . The members for Manchester and for Stockport both spoke in tevmsof strong alarm respecting the " dire confusion " which then prevailed . Ministers at that time asked for no extraordinary powers ; but what would Parliament have said to them if in that time of " dire confusion" they had displayed apathy and indifference ? Would not Parliament , in case of danger , have held Ministers responsible forthe non-exercise of that very power which it now blamed them for exercising after tranquillity had been restored ? All that Ministers

    had done in the exercise of that power , both with _respecij to Mr . Mazzini and Captain Stolzman , liad been laid fully and without reserve before a committee in which there was a majority of their political opponents ; and that committee had fully acquitted them of any abuse of that authority . In the exercise of that authority they might in critical times have made mistakes ; but . what would have been their position if they had endangered the life of one man , or had compromised the safety of the nation , by shrinking from the responsibility which was imposed upon them ? He pressed , in conclusion , upon the House the 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 . _Wareuhiox justified , at considerable length , the report of the committee , of which he had been a member . In considering the question , whether it was advisable to grant to Mr . Duncombe the , committee for which he had moved , he observed that his own opinion was , that the : facts , of the case had been communicated to the House as far as was consistent with the public good . Mr . Wakley observed that when the House considered what had passed on the present occasion , coupled with what had taken place when the subject was before the House during the last session , it would be admitted that his Hon . Colleague in the representation of Finsbury was placed in a niost _^ unfair position , for he had always exercised his functions , as the representative of his constituents , in the moat independent and energetic manner ; expressing his sentiments on all occasions with the

    most perfect boldness , and being thus conspicuous for the liberality of his sentiments , he was sought out by a foreigner , who , relying on his position as a Member of that House , placed a petition in liis hands , wherein he complained that his letters had been opened at the Post-office , and asked for redress in tho form ofa petition to that House . And when the Right Hon . Baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) was applied to for information as to the truth of the facts alleged by one individual , the same Mr . Mazzini who had petitioned , he turned round on being questioned with respect to Stolzman , and said "if you will give me notice of the sort of information you seek , I will see if it might not be possible for me to answer you . " A secret committee was subsequently appointed to Inquire into the subject and report upon it , the result of which proceeding would , he trusted , afford a lesson to the House not to act in a similar manner

    on a future occasion , for the whole proceeding was merely a whitewashing of the Government . ( 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 whieh came under its knowledge in a mass , each member of the committee saying that all had been disclosed by them which it was safe or prudent to do , and intimating the danger that would result if such were published . But , his Hon . Colleague had opened a new case for the consideration of the House . He had at first simply presented a petition from Mr . Mazzini , complaining that his letters were opened , and praying for redress . The report of the 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 , whicli was the direct cause of hs 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 Hon . 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 iu the performance of his duties , and the name of the Queen had been introduced in a mostextraordinary and unprecedented manner by him in order to shield liim

    from making any disclosures of his acts . ( Hear , hear . ) This course of observation was quite new to him ( Mr . Wakley . ) He had always understood by the practice of the constitution , that the responsibilities of the Sovereign rested solely upon the Ministers according to the established maxim , " the King can do no wrong , " ( Hear , hear , ) whichmeant that the Crown could do nothing without the immediate agency , and consequently tne 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 himself ? ( 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 . It 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 ofhis own advice —( hear , hear)—and when his Hon . Colleague repeated the charge , and had asserted in terms not to bo misunderstood that the Right Hon . Baronet had caused his letters to be opened , that Right Hon . Baronet had not denied the truth of his allegation , but had left the matter entirely unanswered . The Right Hon . Baronet , the First Lord ofthe Treasury , had however come forward and made out an affected justification of the violation of whicli 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 state of tumult and 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 the masses put in motion being then made , had rendered it most necessary . that every precaution should be adopted to discover and to prevent this agitation J and that the Government consequently was justified in using the power which it possessed of opening _lettei-B for the purpose of so discovering what was going on . Was , then , Ins 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 Rig ht Hon . Baronet —( hear , hear ); and that was the justification which he put forth in behalf of the 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 the Right Hon . Baronet was as p lain as it could be . If he did not mean that what did he mean ? ( Hear ,

    , hear . ) His Hon . political colleague always tried after a high quarry . The Right Hon . Baronet , the Secretary for the Homo Department , _wna a favourite subject with him . Mr . Duncombe always tried thought the highest game the most attractive . He occasionally attacked the judges ; and the Right Hon . Baronet had said on a former occasion , that his Hon . colleague was justified in calling himself and other functionaries to account . Now , because his Hon . colleague had so occupied himself from time to-time , was he to be subject to have his letters detained and opened , a course which the Right Hon . Baronet had stated to have been followed , under official responsibilities , which neither he ( Mr . Wakley ) nor anybody else could discover ? What was that responsibility in

    which the Right Hon . Baronet ' s official character was so deeply implicated ? Was the House to be told that Ministers were justified iii opening letters , and when they vere called upon to show the responsibility under which they did so , were they to be allowed to reply by casting on an individual Member who charged thein with violating his correspondence , the brand of being engaged in a seditious intercourse ? ( "No , no . " ) Then if this were not the case , why had his Hon . colleague ' s letters been opened ? The Right Hon . Baronet was bound , if he denied this inference , to state to the House what the grounds were which , in his opinion , justified his prying into his Hon .

    colleague s letters . And m this particular case , supposing that the authority under which he claimed the power of doing so were admitted , was there anything to justify him in the secresy whicli 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 . Buthe 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

    F ' I -S* .' !!

    had been opened by the Secretary of State for the Home Department , and the answer of that Secretary in point of fact was , he could not acknowledge the truth ofthe 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 scarcliing inquiry intothe pointed and personal charge brought liis Hon . colleague . ( Cheers . ) . Mr . Roebuck rose to address the House , but Mr . _BKoriiERToy moved an adjournment ofthe debate till Thursday , which was put and agreed to . The House adjourned at twenty minuteSto 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 and 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 _^ Windcrmere Railway , the Cheshire and Birkenhead Railway , the Cockermouth and Workington Ratiway , the Manchester and Carlisle Railway , and Leeds and Dewsbury Railway . In answer to a question from Mr . M . Mijnes , Sir R . Peel stated that in the beginning of last year certain Italian refugees , subjects of Austria , resided in the British possessions in the

    Mediterranean , and the British Government , received a strong remonstrance from the Austrian Government , complaining 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 suppressing it . In consequence of this the Earl ' of Aberdeen communicated to the Austrian Government all that he knew respecting the designs of these parties , but he gave neither the names , letters , or copies of letters , or extracts of letters , from any individuals residing within the power of the Austrian Government . With respect to the descent upon Calabria , 'Lord Aberdeen had communicated no

    information , for he had none—the event itself having taken everyone by surprise . On the 12 th of June , twenty-two individuals embarked from Corfu in a small boat , without the knowledge of the British authorities , and when the Austrian authorities asked Lord Seaton to send an armed steamer in pursuit of them , he refused to do so , contenting himself with sending to Otranto to communicate the fact to the Neapolitan Government . Subsequently a formal complaint was made to our ambassador at Vienna , that the British Government were affording shelter to parties concerting plots to disturb the tranquillity of Italy . This , he thought , was sufficient to relieve the British Government from the groundless imputations which had been tin-own out against it .

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

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

    Right Hon . Baronet to tax the realized capital of Ireland , as well as that of England , or else toshow that the ch'cumstances of Ireland were such as to satisfy , him in deviating from his general rule . He called also on the members of the agricultural interest of England to pluck up a little courage , to cease from crawling on tlieir bellies before the Minister , and to relieve their tenants , of whose distresses they wore always complaining , by extending this tax to the realized capital of the sister country . He appealed likewise to the members ofthe 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 orijrinally refused

    to impose tliis tax on the laud of Ireland , because he had increased the stamp duties in that country . Now , stamps being chiefly used in the transfer of property , - tell heaviest on the middling and lower classes ; and therefore he advised him to remit the stamp duties , which fell on those classes , and to extend the operation of a tax which would fall principally on the more opulent . 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 notsubmittotheimpositionoftheincomctax ? When he proposed tliis amendment on ii former evening , Mr . Sheil advised him to read over Edmund Burke ' s speech on conciliation with America . He knew the idea whicli was passing at the moment through Mr . Shcil ' s mind—it was that of revolution ; it was that Ireland was so turbulent that it would not submit to SUCll a tax . He was glad to see Mr . Sheil attending

    in his place in "that House ; but the other Irish Members , where were they ? They had turned tail ; they had deserted their post , ancl had . piisillanimously shrunk 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 tlie extra taxation of England for the untaxed landloi _* ds 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 a little too bad . He woidd endeavour to remedy such a state of things by imposing the property tax , which they deemed so advantageous , upon their shoulders : at the same time he wished it to be understood that he would exempt the income derived from the trade , commerce and professions of that country 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 I" 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 Mow the example of his absent friends , he addressed himself to the consideration of the different proposals of Mr , Warburton and Mr . Roebuck on the subject of the income and property tax . " Perpetuity , " cried the one ; " Universality , " cried the other . " Eternity , " said 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 . His scheme of equality , therefore , fell at onee to the ground . On a former occasion he ( Mr . Sheil ) had recommended Mr . Roebuck to read Burke ' s speech On Conciliation with America : on the present lie would recommend him to rend the speech of the eloquent defender of the Canadas ( Mr . Roebuck ) , in which admirable precepts were laid down for the mode in which England ought to govern that country—precepts which he wished his Learned Friend would follow on the present occasion . In his present amendment , however ,

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

    property tax would prove in his hands ? He verilv 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 whicli would make Catholicism , Protestantism , and _Presbytcrianism coalesce against the British Government in Ireland . He would tell the House of a better mode of obtaining an increased revenue than the imposition of a property tax on Ireland . Saving was an equivalent to gam . Introduce better government into Ireland , and you may reduce your army . Adapt your institutions to Ireland , instead of adapting lieland 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-

    F ' I -S* .' !!

    land will repay , with magnificent usury , evury cftbrfyou may make for her improvement . * Sir Jons Tyrrell made a short speech in favour of the amendment , which created much amusement in the committee . He repeated his complaint f . W tlie agricultural interest had not received any relief from Sir R . Peel ' s proposed measure of reduced tar ation ; and remarked , that it was a _singuliirfacttint gentlemen on the Opposition benches sup ported tint Right Hon . Bart .-upon the vqluntary , whilst centle men on the Ministerial benches supported him the compulsory , principle ; He hoped that when np read the division list to-morrow , he should find tint his agricultural friends , who complained so much of the treatment which they received _froniGovei-nnient had not gone " about ship , " but had given theii votes in favour of Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment . Mr . W . Wh . li . ims declared his intention of Kim

    porting tho amendment in a speech in which hu shewed that since the union the relative taxation of Ireland towards that of Great Britain had continn ally diminished , till now , inthe last financial vcar tha taxation levied on Ireland was only £ 4 , 037 , 0 ( 10 whilo that on Great Rritain amounted to £ 51 , 30 0 000 He then entered into a review of Sir R . Peel ' s finan rial speech , and concluded by declaring that when Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment was disposed of , lie would propose another , to the effect that all persons reeeiv ing public money in Ireland should pay thereon the " sanw income . tax as was levied in England . He _% m no reason why the Lord Lieutenant , the l ord Chancellor , and the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be exempt from a tax on their large salaries because they were paid in Ireland , whieh every clerk in the public offices here was obliged to pay , merely because he received his small pittance of the public money in England .

    Mr . Ross , Lord Bernard , and Mr . _Bellkw de . fended the Irish landlords from the attacks wliich had been made upon them by the Hon . Member for Bath . A smart and somewhat angrv discus sion ensued , in the course ofwhich the words " foul calumnies" were used by Mr . Newdigate , who on being called to order , apologised to the House . ' H length Sir R . Peel rose , and admitted that , ahli _ongt strict justice might require the extension of the tax to Ireland , yet , as there was no machinerv fo

    r its collection in that country , the creation of the machinery would be so expensive , that the Govern _, ment would not be justified , in an economical point of view , in-proposing its creation ; therefore , he eonsidcred that it would be better to accept from Ireland an equivalent for the property tax ; and , ' compariii B the benefit whicli would rfecrue to England froni the removal of the import duties with tliat wliich would accrue to Ireland , the latter country woukl not be justly dealt with if the property tax were imposed on hnr .

    lhe discussion was continued for some time after the Right Hon . Gentleman had sat down , Mr . Ser . geant Murphy , Mr . Wallace , Colonel Sibthorp , Lord Palmcrston , and several other Hon . Members taking part in it ; after whieh the Committee divided , wh »„ there appeared for the amendment 33 , against it 375 The Committee then divided on the original resolution , afh ' rming the income-tax , when there apiioavcd for it 228 , against it 30 . " The other orders of-the day were then disposed of and the House adjourned at one o ' clock . '

    Molict Mtillwmt

    _Molict _Mtillwmt

    - BOW-STIIEET . _TUESOAY . —iNnDMAN CONDUCT . OP _rAKENTS . —Matthew Pavris , a trunk-maker , and Ann , his wife , were placed at the bar , before Mr . Jardine , charged under , the Vagrant Act ( 5 th Geo . IV ., chap . 83 , sec . 3 ) , at tlie instance uf tis guardians ofthe Strand Union , with wilfully refusing and neglecting to maintain tlieir three cliildren , being able wholly or in part so to do , in consequence of wliich thoy became chargeable to the pavish . i-Mv . Gorder , clerk to tho guardians , ' said the male defendant had worked for vcars in the service of Mr . Hawkins , trunk-maker in the Strand , receiving . twenty shillings as wage . * , and his wife usually earned about' eight ' _shillings per wet-kin jobbing among families in the neighbourhood , while the eldest son handed over to them eight shillings per week , which he received in ITungerford-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 kcj > t the younger members of the family , at 10 , New Cl ' iuvch . court , Strand , would be explained by gentlemen present , who discovered them in going their rounds to visit the ; toor and dispense charity , and also by the children who could prove that they had daily experienced the same treatment during the last three years . —Mr . John Limbird , publisher , 143 , Strand , and a guardian , said that on Wednesday last he went with others to New Church-court , for the purpose of administering charity , anil on entering No . 13 he pro . ceeded tu 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 , anddiscovcral three children huddled together in it behind a nig , without any other covering upon tliem ' . The day was very inclement ; and , on looking closer , he saw that the little creatures had rags upon them which reached down nieroh _; to the hips . On questioning the woman she admitted thev

    were her children , adding that no person had been in the cellar except witness andthcgentleman who accompanied him , and that tlie children had not been out of it s ' mecthe month of August last . She also said ' that , the door was always fastened when the lodgers went down \ fm « nx « _, and that her husband , who was far gone in a consumption , had gone to the King's College Hospital , of which he was an out-patient , for the purpose of procuring medicine and advice . As to the state in , which he found the cellar , it would be impossible to give a correct description , for it was in a worse condition than any stable lie had ever put liis foot in . —The male defendant said that when inquiries were made of him he told the truth to the guardians , and if his _I ' _iiDiily appeared in a sta _*** e of destitution it wis broughton by tha intemperate habits of his wife , but lie never allowed his children to want food , although lie was unable to wash them , being obliged to attend to his work . —The defendants were remanded .

    SOUTHWARK . 3 IO . VDAT . —Dbeadfoi _. Effects of Dbink . —Elizabeth Slake , the wife of a hatter in the Spa-road , Bermondsey , was brought before Mr . Traill , charged with attempting to destroy sherelf by cutting her throat with a knife . The prisoner of late had been subject to very violent fits oi passion , which were increased by habits of inebriety . On Saturday last _sheliad been foi ' some hours from ' home , and on her return became excited , and , snatching 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 , aud at tlie same time rushed towards tlie prisoner , and seized her arm , which she endeavoured to disengage , and she was about to repeat tho attempt upon her life , when her husband , alarmed by the noise , entered the room , and seeing what was . _soiii _' , ' 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 lier . throat , and in the effort made by 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 _S _^™ her into custody . The injury she inflicted on herself was found on investigation not to be of sueh a dangerous nature as was at first supposed . The witness added , that tlie prisoner had attempted to commit suicide twice before while in her house , and that witness had no doubt h , w | produced from her habits of intoxication , for lier husband was industrious , and there was no want of the eorawon necessaries of life . The prisoner ' s husband , ulthougn aware of the situation in which his wife was p laced , m not | attend , and she was accordingly eowunitteil in _defauu of finding the required sureties .

    LAMBETH . Moxd at . _^ Assaulting the Police . _—101111 *] Kemm alias "Wright , and Joseph _Turdy _, were charged , tho aj ™*' with violently assaulting a poliee-eoiistaWe , and the _••»• _£ with attempting to rescue him from the custody of _« - police . From the evidence it appeared that at ala" - ' ! _j '' on Saturday night the prisoner Kemble , who about t _* ir « weeks since was charged at this court lvithmurilcri"' ?™ own mother , was found fighting with another liwson Lambeth-walk , whom ho severely punished . Ou the r » * ties being separated , Kemble was given into _custody j his opponent , and on the constable taking hold ol W ™ " declared he would go quietly to the station-house u " constable relinquished his hold . The officer did so , tnin » j ing he would do as he had promised , but instead ot _w he attempted to make his escape , and upon being taken , lie commenced a desperate attack on tb ° '' . '' 0

    , ble , and _Tiirdy endeavoured to rescue him . Two constables came up to the assistance of their uk" _"* officer ; and Kemble , after dealing out severe P " , ' "Lt to the man who secured him , kicked anuthcr in "'•' . savage manner in a delicate partof his _persi-i'i " . ' . jf e . forthe man ' s activity , would have ruined ' . _^ ' ,.... v e The prisoner Kemble said , in reply to the _cluKS _' t " . _" _.-had been drinking rather freely , and was not eou = _** - ; ' _- '' what he did ; and Furdy denied much of what haa *< sworn to by tiie constables . Mr . Norton ( adores * ¦ _» Kemble ) observed , that one would have thought « , ; lt J " fact ofhis having been in custod y and remanded on _f" - _' pieion of having- caused tho death of his o « n I' _-Ot '' J though he might be , and was , he thought , innocent oi j dreadful crime , would have worked some favour *** change in liis conduct , and taught him to know and a _' better . The policemen had acted with great forbear * 11 towards liim , yet his conduct was both brutal and " ¦ ¦ •* _£ and that of his companion was very little better . ' should , therefore , commit them botli for one nion' ! ' t »

    House ol Correction with hard labor .

    CLERKEXWELL . _,, Monday . —Infamous Conduct . —David 1 ) lini } , | * 1 i charged with the following heartless conduct : ~ _- _] ti three weeks ago a poor girl , about 18 years of age , n <* _^ Mary Beckwith , who had been a servant at the l _"} 1151 _' _" _:, _! gentleman in Burton-crescent , was returning to her j _^ ter ' s liouse after spending the day with some _frieii'l ' _-. . j she was met by the prisoner , who induced her v _> " j . with hiin . He drugged her with liquor , and _co" _** _?* . _k to a lodging-house , where , under promise of n _' ' 'i j r i _, _jr seduced her . Next morning he endeavoured to _q- _»^• _^ mind by promising marriage , but at the same l'n 7 (! ' _" _^ j . ollt , her he was a soldier , and wanted 25 s . to buy l ! lllis . , ;„ j She borrowed the money from her friends for _hxw , on few days after lie absconded , taking with him 1 _"'^ _* e ( j . taining every article of clothing the poor girl P" * _* _;^ _,,. ' Ou inquiry the prisoner , who has been at different y- j of his life a . soldier , a policeman , and a ca bmari . U ¦ t out to be married , and his wife was in court . J ' .. J appeared , that when about to be apprehended ne V _^ out two pistols and a sword , and threatened to n' 1 "' ' ' _,-eif she dared to say anything against liim . —H * ¦ , J - manded . _^

    Rnnieady Ifuutrajj Ia «U&Lt;»-N.Il, O* 11, «.»&Lt;*•- ,.51 Street In The Ofwestimnster ¦ 1 " ¦ ¦ ¦--»-¦ ¦¦-¦¦-¦¦ - ¦¦ .Rt Printed By Dougal M'Gowan, Of 17, Great Wind"^

    rnnieaDy _ifuutrAJj ia « u _<» -n . il , o * 11 , « . _»<*• - ,. 51 street in the ofWestimnster ¦ 1 " ¦ ¦ ¦ -- » - ¦ ¦¦ - ¦¦ - ¦¦ - ¦¦ . rt Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great _Wind" _^

    Dy Ifuutrajj «U<»-N., O* , «.»<*•- ,. St...

    , Haymarket , City , Office in the same Street and _Parisli , for "j t , prietor , FEARGUS O'CONNOR , Esq ., undpuU's | lC' " WiixiauJIewitt , of No . 18 , Charles-street , _Bw street , Walworth , in the Parish of St . Mary , _> « j ton , inth « County of Surrey , at the Office , N « . _^ Strand , in the Parish of St . Mary-le-Strnnd m City of Westminster , ' Saturday , Febuary 22 , 1845 .

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), Feb. 22, 1845, page 8, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/ns4_22021845/page/8/