On this page

• Departments (2)
  • 
  • 
• Text (4)

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

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    . goitre frittlltgaitt*

  • 

    Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN, of 17, Great M 11 ^ street, Haymarket, in the City of Westminster , • — ....' ' .. « h • t 1* **1 flio * r.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• 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.

    Untitled Article

    " V ( Cunt imitd from our sevcntli page . ) ^ n&eugjvc-nature , have , in conjunction with . otJicr information , Induced your committee to believe that diplomatic correspondence , when posted in ordinary course , Incurred in this country and in the other g reat states of Europe nearly e ^ ual risk of inspection . IlowJong similar warrants continued , and when they weic&ialr / recalled , your committee have no informatJojii nor do they think it their duty to report as to sibvipractise which may have existed in reference to thisi part of the subject . " They do not think it their duly to answer this charge . But of this they are satisfied , that no such warrants or practices now exists and that public as well as private correspond ence , foreign as well as domestic , passing through tho ftflicfi in regular conrse , 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 hiii 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 -isu in the . Lords' report what makes this seance most important . "It appears , " says the L « :=. W rttnuiittee , "to havefor along period of time , ami uii . icr many successive Administrations , been an csta 3 iL > hed practice that the foreign correspondence of forcku Ministers , passing through the General

    Postoffice , should be sent to a department of the Foreignoffice before the forwarding of such coritspondenee 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 put our committee to the blush when they read that paragraph . ( Hear , hear . ) It is an unworthy quibble that no such practices " now exist ; " it is most disingenuous . ( Hear . ) But what must foreign powers now think of this system of your opening their letters ? Why . suppose they should take the trouble to read what occurred in the House of Lords some years back , when , under the authority of a committee appointed by both . Houses of Parliament , the letters of persons suspected of treason were opened : AVhat happened then , in ltel . withresardtotneVenetian Ambassador

    who complained of his letters being opened ? You find it on the Lords' Journals on the 12 th of Novem ber , 1 GU : — " The Lord Keeper signified to the House , - thatthe 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-lie hath retired himself from the public affairs , as an ambassador between this kingdom and that state until he receives further commands from his masters . Then was read a paper , being a translation out of Italian , delivered frem the Venetian Ambassador . The contents was this , viz ., 'Most noble Louis , 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 confirm 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 ) the very princes and patrons possessing the same dominions amongst the venm-k able and equally necessary ; and that by which we may receive letters , and send irom the proper prince , and whatsoever person , without any interruption , which is the most principal pail of an ambassador ; which practice , most noble sirs , is not the laws of our nation alone , but universal , and hath been

    maintained ar . d inviolatcd of the King and the public , and of all Christian Governments , no less than amongst the most barbarous . I nevertheless cannot say bni that I have enjoyed in this great court that just respeefc , until the last letters were opened which came from France to me directed , although they were restored by my Lord Feilding and Sir Henry Vane , upon whose honour they secured me that ft 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 damnablc , and of so little respect towards the Minister of

    the Scremssima Kespubhca , which , after so many ages , hath given a sincere testimony of aifection and esteem io this Grown . So now new experience , iritli my mortification , hath given testimony of the contrary being yesterday all the letters were opened coining from ? Venice , Antwerpe . and other countries , and 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 owa letters being taken . " The Lords thought the ambassador had very properly designated it , a " damna ' aleexample "—( cheers ) , and they agreed that satisfaction should be made to ini . and to the state of Venice , and that the action should be disavowed , " as tending to the breach of

    public faith , and the law of nations . " Why , Sir , it would serve us quite right , if every one of those great powers , whose letters we have opened , were to call ibr an apoloey ; 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 docs " not exist now , " though it only teased existing in Junelast . ( Hear , hear . ) Butnow we come rather nearer home . I stated that a roving commission was sent into the manufacturing districts in lSi 2 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 _ tlic outbreak in the manufacturing and mining districts , which took place in Awrust / l-312 , in the week of the sreatcst anxiety , . a

    clerk was sent down from the London Post-oflice , with directions , under the authority of a Secretary of State ' s warrant , to open the letters of six parties named therein , all taking a prominent part in the disturbances of that period . In the same week the the same clerk was directed , under authority of two other such warrants , to open the letters often other persons named , and a fortnight later to open the letters of one other person ; making seventeen in all . 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 ISth . and 25 th of August , 1 S 43 , 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 , that have given rise to the report of a commission or commissions having visited the manufacturing districts charged with a general authoritv to open and inspect letters . " I think it is just " probable . " ( A laugh . ) They call my statement " a report" for which there is no foundation ; a sort of vague rumour ; as if I had dreamt it—as if this was not a roving commission . Why , they do not say the clerk was sent to a particular town , but to "the manufacturing andI mining districts , " for the purpose of opening letteis . I said before , that the Right Hon . Gentleman had exercised tiiis power in an unusual manner ; and I ask the

    House , can they produce , in the whole annals of this iniquitous letter-opening system , one single precedent of this species of roving commission ? ( Hear , hear . ) Can you produce any precedent of persons being 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 Postflfficc 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 the letters of these individuals , but they see to whom they arc writing elsewhere , 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 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 . " Are they letters written or received ? How are you to ascertain a man ' s handwriting if they arc letters written . Thereisgreatsimilarityin handwiting . The clerk 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 this system ? I believe that it is novel , and invented by the Right Hon . Baronet . The report went on , — "In the autumn of 1843 , during the disturbances which took plaee in South Wales , two clerks were sent down froni the post-oflke

    into "the . disturbed districts , with directions , under authority of a warrant from the Secretary of State , one to inspect the letters of one person at a particular town , the other to inspect the letters of another personat 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 eighteen , the other seven days . " I say this is a most dangerous power , and those persons are not Ihe proper persons to be entrusted with it ; to have a derk . seBt . down in \ that way ! ^ We ought to have some more satisfactory explanation with reference to this ; roving commission . - I come now to the last chMge , I stated that my correspondence ^ had bee * TMlatedandi ^ f letters opened . ( Hear , hear . ) Now , TipOTthHitheoonmutteeareperfecflv ^ alent . I had only been informed that my * letters going to the

    Untitled Article

    Albany had been detained for the purpose of opening . But though the committee is silent upon it , I now will prove that my letters were ordered to be detained , inspected , and opened oh 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 ,

    anu numerous ; tne representative , noi inenomraeu of a rotten borough . ( Cheers . ) It becomes , therefore , not only an insult to me , but a gross insult to the constituency I have the honour to represent . I I will go further ; if my correspondence is not to be free , I am not a fit representative . ( Cheers . ) And in the name of that constituency I again call on the Right Hon . Baronet to justify , if he 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 More and he talked about wv

    " vapouring . " I askedhim 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 Member in 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 . ) The SrEAKER . —Those observations appear to be of a personal nature . If the Hon . ' Member has made those observations in his place personally to the Right Hon . Gentleman opposite , the Hon . Gentleman no

    doubt will be glad of the opportunity to withdraw them . Mr . Doxcombe . —Sir , I applied those observations to the Right Hon . Gentleman in his Ministerial capacity . To those observations and that language I adhere ( cheers ); so they must and shall remain . 1 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 samejusticc ( bad and small as that -justicc * is ) as they have done to the Polish gentleman . TJiev have not even stated that there was nothing to criminate me in the correspondence opened . But

    they knew well if they had said that , it would have been a direct censure on the Right Hon . Baronet . That is the difficulty that his committee were placed in ; and I am to be sacrificed for the purpose of screening the Right Hon . Baronet . I say that this is an additional reason why another inquiry should be instituted , and I call for that inquiry , for the vindication of my own character , and in justice to my constituents . It is seldom that I have an opportunity of agreeing with the organ of the Government , commonly called the Morning Jlcrald . ( Laughter . ) But I mast , in justice 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 Cabinetand 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 , which sa vs 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 3 loming Herald . " Itstainpsauy 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 ; beeausearesol « tion on yom'journ . al states —that it is ahigh breach of privilege for the letters

    of any member ofthis House to be opened , except by the warrant of the Secretary of State . I Bay that very resolution justifies me in putting that question to the Right Hon . Baronet in reference to ray 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 in the House about it , there is none out of doors . ( Ilcar , 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 Iladr dins ton ) stated on the 25 th of June—'' Your lordships

    will admit that this is a power which has not only existed in this country in all times , butit is one which must always exist in every country that has a Government at all . " So Lord Haddington say ' s there can be no Government without this power . Ho 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 thi 3 ; but I do maintaiu that the honour of England and of Englishmen requires the total and immediate abolition of this power . ( Cheers . ) It is with these views that I now move "that a select committee be appointed , to inquire into the mode in which letters have been detained ,

    opened , and re-sealed , at the General or at any provincial Post-oflice , and also into the circumstances under which every warrant for that purpose has been issued by any Secretary of State , from the first day of January , 1 S 10 , to the present time ; tho said committee to report their opinion thereon to tho 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-oflice 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 dutyW 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 Postofiicc . 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 Mr . " Buncombe ' s charges , and shewed that a majority of its members consisted of his political opponents . To that committee , without reservation , he had tendered all the information which he possessed on the subject . If his conduct had been base and mean , it had been brought under their consideration . Before them , at least , ho had had the courage to state what he had done ; and BUDposing that they were prepared to acquit him of baseness or meanness , both personally

    and officially , he cared not one rush if Mr . Buncombe thought fit to condemn him either upon mere suspicion , or upon information collected he knew not how , and given by persons he knew not whom . He contended that the committee had made a most satisfactory report , and that it had completely followed up the instructions of the House . A similar inquiry had also been instituted in 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 of the prerogative of his office . Mr . Duncombe was under a gross mistake as to the abolition of what he called the " Secret-office , " at St . Martin ' s-le-grand . A secret office , connected with the Foreign Department

    of the Government , had existed for more than a century in the Post-office ; and he now informed the House that it had been withdrawn from the Postoffice , and was no longer in existence , in consequence of orders that had been issued by the Foreign-office . He denied that he had fabricated or trumped up a warrant with a false date for the opening of the lettera of Mr . Mazzini ; and repeated the assertion , which he had niado 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 aud their associates , and in subsequently putting them to death , and denied that either he or his noble colleague had been euiltv 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 believe that any further inquiry could be productive of any advantage . The real practical question was , whether the House would revoke the power which had been given to every Secretary of State since the reign of Queen Anne , to open private letters in case ef necessity , or whether they would continue it . If they should determine to revoke it , they had the power to do so ; but if they determined to continue it , it was impossible for any Secretary of State to . exercise it with advantage to the public service , if he were called upon to declare publicly on every occasion to the House all the reasons which had induced him to

    put it in force . - Mr . ' Siieil then rose and said—My observations shall be very short , and I hope very temperate . The Right Hon . Baronet has unequivocally admitted that the letters addressed to Mr . Mazzini were opened , and that the 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 ltightllon . Baronet is almost * more than confirmatory of that r eport ; The Right Hon . Gentleman justifies that proceeding . This is notthetime to consider whether that proceeding was just or not ; for this question is not raised by the ; present motion . = My Honl -Friend ( Mr . -T . Duncombe ) " wiU ^ have the opportunity of

    Untitled Article

    raising 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-rthat letters of Mr . Mazzini were opened ; that they were regularly conveyed to . him after being opened is , I believe , hot 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 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 , was continued ; and the substance of the information obtained from Mr . Mazzini ' s letters was communicated to a foreign power

    Ihe committee state that "the facts of the case , so far asjyour committee feel themselves at liberty to disclosetlieni , appear to be as follows . " It appears , then , there were tacts that the committee did think themselves at liberty to disclose . ( Hear , hear ) . I do not mean to say that the committee of secrecy appointed under such peculiar circumtances were not justified in using such a discretion ; but it is clear that all the facts they ascertained are not discloscd , —that though there has not been a sugyestio faki , 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 Mi . Mazzini was mentioned

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

    appear before the committee to conduct his case and to prove his accusation . The committee refused , to allow him to conduct his case , and I believe to hear him . ( Cheers . ) Under these circumstances , it is a matter I think of legitimate curiosity , to know what is the justification on the part of the committee for omitting all mention of Mr . Duncombe . ( Cheers . ) How stands the fact ? When the Right Hon . Gentleman the Secretary of State for the ' Home Department was first interrogated upon the subject he refused to give any answer . He sheltered hlmscll 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 heating 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 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 lettera of Mr . Duucombe ? ( Great cheering . ) Lord Sandon rose amidst some cries oi' " Question . "

    He said , —My back was turned when the Right Hon . Gentleman put his question ; will he oblige me by repeating it ? . . Mr . Sueimi ( 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 my interrogatory . ( Loud cheers , and cries for Sir James U . raham , amidst which)—Lord Sanook 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 ho could understand , tho 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 Department did not think it consistent with his duty ( cries of Oh , oh ! from the Opposition , and uproar ) then to answer the question , ho ( Lord Sandou ) thought it then became his duty , as chairman of the secret committee that had been appointed , to make some observations . ( Continued uproar , and cries ot 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 which had come before it , nor justify fully the report which they had made . They must therefore trust to their own characters for their defence . Still he thought , that upon the very face of it , the report was neither evasive nor unsatisfactory . If Mr . Sheil were to put to him the question which he had just put to Sir J . Graham , anu 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 such prurient curiosity . Sir J . Graham . observed that , when he was interrogated upon this subject last year , he had refuscil

    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 lie had already mentioned , there was a majority of his political opponents . There was" no one fact which 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 . Hc . 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 distinction between the cases of the two foreigners and the other cases which had been alluded to .

    Mr . Hume commended the discretion of Sir J . Graham in not replying to the interrogatory which had been put to him . Still , he must ask who it was that made this committee a secret one ? It was Sir J . Graham himself , who had , therefore , no right to throw off his own shoulders the responsibility of his own work , lie thought at the time that the proceedings of the committee ought to have been public , and he now considered it to be advisable that the evidence which it took should be forthwith published . He confessed that he had always considered it derogatory toi 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 Hasmer thoughtthnt 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 . lie had no " prurient curiosity" respecting the evidence given before the set-ret committee—but it concerned lilni , as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of a free country , that the House of Commons should examine into that charge , and should inquire if it were true ,

    whether the pewer of the Secretary of State was exercised on sufficient reasons . For those reasons would contain necessary information for them whenever they came to the consider ation of a question with which they must soon deal , namely , whether it jbc desirable or not that the power of opening lottei-s 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 Murphy was convinced , that notwithstanding the reasons which Sir James Graham had just given for his silence , ' the impression mado on the country by that silence would be very unsatisfactory . That impression might have been avoided had he pursued the course which was adopted some years ago , when Mr . Roebuck brought forward some very serious charges against individual members of that House . At first an objection was made to the placing Mr . Roebuck on the committee appointed to investigate those charges ; but at last he was made chairman of it , and had gained great credit for the impartiality with which he had acted . Was it , then , fair that Mr . Duncombe , whose privileges , which were the property of the public , had been violated ,

    should not only have been prevented from conducting his own case , but should also have been excluded from the committee-room in which the inquiry was carried on ? Because Mr . Duncombe had not' been added to that committee , Sir . J . Graham was obliged to clothe himself in the mystery of office—a mystery which he thought would not be satisfactory to the country . Sir It . Peki . 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 uetore it should be forthwith published . He insisted that there had been no misconduct on the part of the executive Government in the exercise of this power of opening letters . If it was wrong to exercise such power at all , the fault was not with the executive Government , but with the Parliament which had thought fit to arm it with such aniinstrument : Parliament Had not intrusted the executive Government with such power haatily-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

    Untitled Article

    ¦^^—¦ — ¦ r — j . w . resolution that it " would not be a breach of privilege to open a letter addressed to a member it'it were done under the warrant of a Secretary of State . \ In tfio 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 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 refuse 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 , 1842 ; but had Hon . Members torgotten the state of disturbance in which some parts of the country were at that period ? The ¦ Member lor Woiverhampton at that time made a motion limiting the prorogation of Parliament to sonio day in the month of October , on the express ground that the country was in danger of civil confusion . The members for Manchester and for Stockport both spoke in terms of strong alarm respecting the " dire confusion ' which then prevailed . Ministers at that-time asked for no extraordinary powers ; but what would Parliament have said to them if in that time of " dire confusion" they had displayed apathy and indifference ? Would not Parliament , in case of , danger , have held Ministers responsible for the non-exercise of ' that very nnwer which it now blamed them for exercising after

    tranquillity had been restored ? All that Ministers had done in the exercise of that power , both with respect to Mr . Mazzini and Captain Stolzman , had been laid fully and without reserve before a committee in which there was a majority of their political opponents ; and that committee had fully acquitted them' of any abuse of th « at 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 tho Ministers whom that committee had acquitted , by subjecting them to a second trial . . ••• ••¦

    Mr . 'Warbumon 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 tho committee for which he had moved , he observed that his own opinion was , that the facts of the case had been communicated to the House as far as was consistent with the public good . Mr . Wakley observed that when the House considered what had passed on the present occasion , coupled with what had taken place when the subject was before the House during the last session , it would be admitted that his Hon . Colleague in the representation of Finsbury was placed in a most unfair position , for he had always exercised ^ his functions , as the representative of Ms constituents , in the most independent and energetic manner ; expressing his sentiments on all occasions with the

    most perfect boldness , and'being thus conspicuous for the liberality of his sentiments , he was _ sought out by a foreigner , who , relying on his position as a Member of that House , placed a petition in his hands , wherein he complained that his letters had been opened at the Post-office , avid asked for redress in the form of a petition to that House . And when the Right lion . 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 seo 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 witJi mentioning the names of one or two individuals whose , correspondence had boon violated , and then classing the whole of the other cases which came under its knowledge in a mass , each member of the committee saying that all had been disclosed by them which it was safe or prudent to do , and intimating the danger that would result if such were published . J 3 ut , his Hon . Colleague had opened a new case for tho consideration of the House . He had at first

    simply presented a petition from Mr . Mazzini , complaining that his letters were opened , and pr aying 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 , which was the direct cause of ils boing appointed , and which ease he had brought before the notice of the House . His lion . Colleague , however , brought a fresh allegation to . the attention of the House ; . he had told the Right lion . Baronet ( Sir J . Graham ) to his face , that he charged him with having opened his letters at the Pyst-office . What did the Right Hon . Baronet say ini 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 unpijeccdentcd manner by him in order to shield him from making any disclosures of his acts . ( Hear , hear . ) This course of observation was quite new to him ( Mr . Wakley . ) He had always understood by ^ he practice of the constitution , that the responsibilities of the Sovereign rested solely upon the Ministers according to the established maxim , " the King can do no wrong , " ( Hear , hear , ) which ' meant that tho Crown could do nothing without the immediate agency , and consequently the entire responsibility of Ministers . By whose advice , therefore , was the Crown in the present case induced to absolve Minister from their oaths of sccrcsv , if it was not bv the direct counsel ot

    the Right lion . Baronet himself ? ( Hear , hear . ) And upon whom rested the responsibility of that proceeding , if not upon the Right lion . Baronet ? ( Hear , hear . ) The subterfuge was ti ' 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 of his own advice —( hear , hear)—and when his lion . Colleague repeated the charge , and had asserted iujterms not to be misunderstood that the Right Hon . Baronet had caused his letters to be opened , that Right lion . Baronet had not denied the truth of his allegation , but had left the matter entirely unanswered . The Right Hon . Baronet , the First Lord of . tho 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 re minded 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 ill 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 bo adopted to discover and to prevent this agitation ; and that the Government consequently was justified in using tho power which it

    possessed of opening letters for the purpose ot 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 movo ' i ( 1-Iear , hear . ) That was the only inference which could be fairly drawn from the observations of tl ^ e Ri ght lion . 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 lion . Baronet . ( No , no , from the Ministerial benches . ) Yes , he put the same construction upon it that the House had clone

    already . ( No , no . ) No—why , the meaning-of the Right Hon . Baronet was as plain as it could-be . If he iliil not mean that , what did he mean ? ( Hear , hear . ) Ilis Hon . political colleague always cried after a high quarry .. The Right lion . Baronet , the Secretary for the Home Department , was 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 ofhcial 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 Avere justified in opening letters , and when they vcre 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 charg ed them with violating his correspondence , the brand of being engaged in a seditious intercourse ? ( "No , no . " ) then if this were not the ease , 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

    lijs opinion , justified his prying into his Hon . colleague ' s letters . And in this particular case , supposing tliat-the authority under which he claimed the power of doing so were admitted , was there anytime to justify him in the secresy " which had been practised withreapect . 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 iip again , and sealed in such a manner as that no one should know they had been so opened ; But he would not go further mto the particulars of these cases Whether the power , when it ' came to be examined into , could bei maintained w not , was net now the question . ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . colleague had stated thaf his letters had-been opened .- A Member of that House . alleged , in his place that his . letters

    Untitled Article

    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 liii'h 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 . Bbotiierton moved an adjournment ofthe debate till Thursday , which was put and agreed to . 1 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 and Staleybridgc , 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 bilk : —The Hull and Selby Railway , the Keiidal and Wimlcrmere Railway , the Cheshire and Birkenliead Railway , the Cockcnnouth and Workington Ratiway , the Manchester and Carlisle Railway , and Leeds and Dcwsbury ' " Railway . In answer to a question from Mi * . 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 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 Papa ^ States , the Commander in Chief at Milan had received instructions to march at once for the purpose of suppressing it . In " consequence of this the Earl of Aberdeen communicated to the Austrian Government all that he knew respecting the designs of these parties , but he gave neither the names , letters , or copies of letters , or extracts of letters , from any

    individuals residing within the power of the Austrian Government . With respect to the descent upon Calabria , Lord Aberdeen had communicated no information , for he had none—the event itself having taken every one by surprise . On the 12 th of June , twenty-two individuals embarked from Corfu in a small boat , without the knowledge of . the 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 , that tho British Government were affording shelter to parties concerting plots to disturb the tranquillity of Italy . This , lie thought , was sufficient to relieve

    the British Government from the groundless imputations which had been thrown out against it . Mr . ' FjsitRAXD 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 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 the table ? Sir J . Graham said , it was true that Mr . Moggeridge had conducted the inquiry to which the Hon . Member referred . That inquiry was now closed ; the report had been drawn up , but had not yet reached him . When it came into his possession he 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 , and 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—which induced him to deviate in the case of . Irclaud from the rule which governed his conduct in the case of England , Scotland , and Wales , ne 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 . Ho therefore culled upon the

    Right lion . 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 rule , lie 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 ofthe mercantile-interest for support to his proposition , on the ground that it would enable them to employ a greater amount of laboi . r , and to pay a higher rate of wages for it . Sir 11 . 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 tho 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 the imposition 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 which 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 such a tax . He was dad to see Mr . Sheil attendins

    in his place in that House ; but the other Irish Members , where were they ? They had turned tail ; they bad deserted their post , and bad pusillaninioiisly 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 It . Peel , the agricultural and the mercantile interests , not to sanction the extra taxation of England for the uiitaxed landlords of Ireland . He wondered how any landlord of that country could look an Englishman In the face and talk of the advantages of a property tax . It was a little too bad . He would endeavour to remedy such a state of tilings 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 . Siieil 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 , 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 Kcudal ; " Infinity , " retorted the yoke from Bath . But Mi-. 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 aud Schedule D ; but on Ireland lie would only impose Schedule A , and would leave out Schedule D . His scheme of equality , therefore , fell at once 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 he would recommend hmi'to . read the speech of-the eloquent defender of the Cauadas ( 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 Mow on the present occasion . In his present amendment , however , he diflcred 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 ; tho Cl'OWn-routs aild quit-i'ents of Ireland were also expended m the embellishment of London and oi Windsor Castle ; and Mr . Roebuck , with a knowledge of both these facts before him , proposed to exhaust it still more b \; draining from it tho amount of the 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 woods halfpence created in Ireland in the time of Swift , would they arm Mr . O'Connell , a second Swift , with such an instrument of , agitation as the property tax would prove in his hands ? He " verily

    Deueveo . mat Uolonel Upnolly , 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 Presbyttmmsm 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 waa an eqmyalent to gam . Introduce . better government into Ireland , and you may reduce your army . Adant your institutions to Ireland , instead of adapting Ireland to your institutions , ajid you ( wmgain perpetual peace . Peace will gam wealth ; wealth will demand k-, greater consumption of coffee , sugar ,. and other taxable ^ ommodities , and will throw open a new field for British manufactureB ; . and % , prosperity of Ire-

    Untitled Article

    land will repay , with magnificent usury , every effort you may make for her improvement . " Sir John Tybrkll made a short speech in favo ur of the amendment , which created much amusement in the committee . He repeated his complaint that the agricultural interest had not received any relief from Sir R . Peel's proposed measure of reduced tax ation ; and remarked , that it was a singular faet tha ^ gentlemen on the Opposition benches supported thja Right Hon . Bart , upon the voluntary , whilst " cntlc men on the Ministerial benches supported h ? m the . compulsory , principle . He hoped that when lw read the division list to-morrow , ho should find tliaf his agricultural friends , who complained so mud , ! $ the treatment which they received froin troveni f had not gone " about ship , " but had given Jrp votes in favour of Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment , Mr . W . AYilliams declared his intenti on < tf » ,. „

    porting the amendment m a speech in which h * shewed that since the union the relative taxation of Ireland towards that of Great Britain had continn ally diminished , till now , in the last financial vcar tliP taxation levied on Ireland was only £ 4 , 097 , 000 whii . that on Great Britain amounted to £ 51 , 300 000 He then entered into a review of Sir R . Peel ' s fi ' nan cial speech , and concluded by declaring that wiies Mr . Roebuck ' s amendment was disp osed of , lift would propose another , to the effect that all persons receiv ing public money in Ireland should pay thereon the " same income tax as was levied in England , He saw no reason why the Lord-Lieutenant , tlie Lord Chancellor , and the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be exempt from a tax on their large salaries because they were paid in . Ireland , which every clerk in the public offices here was obliged to pay , ' nierelv because ho received his small pittance of the public monev in England .

    Mr . Ross , Lord Bernard , and Mr . Beluj v de « fended the Irish landlords from the attacks wJiieh had been made upon them by the Hon . Member ' for Bath . A smart and somewhat angry discus ^ ensued , in the course of which the words " fa calumnies" were used by Mr . Newdigate , who on being called to order , apologised to the House . A length Sir R . Peel rose , and admitted that , although strict justice might require the extension of the tax to Ireland , yet , as there was no machinery for

    its collection in that country , the creation of the machinery would be so expensive , that the Govern , incut would not bo . justified , in an economical point of view , m proposing its creation ; therefore , he con . sidercd that it would be better to accept from Ireland an equivalent for the property tax , and , comparin . the benefit which would accrue to England from the removal of the import duties with that which wotiid accrue to Ireland , the latter country would not l « justly dealt with if the property ta x were imposed on her .

    The discussion was continued for some time aft ( t the Right Hon . Gentleman had sat down , Mr . Sergeant Murphy , Mr . Wallace , Colonel Sibthorp , Lord Palmcrston , and several other Hon . Members takin * part in it ; after which the Committee divided , when there appeared for the amendment 33 , against it 2 jj , The Committee then divided on the original resolution , affirming the income-tax , when there appeared for it 228 , against it 30 . The other orders of the day were then disposed $ , and the House adjourned at one o ' clock .

    Untitled Article

    BOW-STREET . Tbesdat — Inhuman Conduct or Parents . —iluttheit Tarris , a trunk-maker , and Ann , his wife , were placea j the bar , before Mr . Jardiiie , charged under the Vagi'ajj Act ( 5 th Oeo . IV ., chap . S 3 , sec . 3 ) , at the instance of & guardians ofthe Strand Union , with wilfully refusing asi neglecting to maintain their three children , bein ? a& wholly or in part so to do , in consequence of which thj ; became chaiijeable to the parish . — VLv . Cordur , clerk ioi ; guardians , said the male defendant had worked for years in the service of Jlr . Hawkins , trunk-maker in the St ' ranj , receiving twenty shillings as wages , and his wife usual ' j earned about eight shillings per week in jobbing amor . families in the neighbourhood , while the eldest son hand *! . over to them eight shillings per week , which lie received a Hungerfoi'd-market , where he was employed , and tli ; eldest girl the sum of four shillings , which * she madefy

    shoe-binding . Ihe shocking condition in which they kep the younger members of the family , at lfl , New cfiurcbcourt , Strand , would be explained by gentlemen present . who discovered them in going their rounds to visit the p » r and dispense charity , and also by tho children who couli prove that they had daily experienced the same trcatuust during the last three years . —Mr . John Limbird , publiste , 143 , Strand , and a guardian , said that on Wednesday last ho wont with otliovs to New Church-court , for the jimiwst of administering charity , and on entering So . i' . l h « pro . ceeded 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 , amldi--covered three children huddled together in it behind a ru » , without any other covering upoii them . The day was 'firy inclement ; and , on looking closer , lie saw that * the litt ' c creatures had rags upon them which reached down merely to the hips . On questioning the woman she admitted they

    were her children , uddmg that no person lnul been in iha cellar except witness and the gentleman who accompanied him , and that the children had not been out of it since the month of August last . She also said that the dooms always fastened when the lodgers went clown for ' water , and that her husband , who was far gone in a eonsuiVsjiiki , had gone t « the King ' s College Hospital , of which lie w an out-patient , for the purpose of procuring medicine and advice . As to the state in which he found the crllar . it would be impossible to give a correct description , for i ; was in a worse condition than any stable ho had ever pa : his foot in . —The male defendant said that when inquiries were made of him he told the truth to the guardians , and if his family appeared in a sta + c of destitution it \ m brought on by the intemperate habits of his wife , but he never allowed his children to want food , although ho wi ; \ i « abU to wash them , being obliged to attend to ) fis w » & —The defendants were remanded .

    SOUTIIWAKK . Monday . —Dreadful Effects of Dkisk . —Elizabeth Blake , the wife of a hatter in tho Spa-road , Hormuudsej . was brought before Sir . Traill , charged with attanptini , 'to destroy sherelf by cutting her throat with a knife . Xk prisoner of late had been subject to very violent fits o passion , which were increased by habits of' inebriety . Os Saturday last she had been for ' sonic hours from ' hums , and on her return became excited , and , stiiitehing- i : pa knife , fell on her knees and drew it across her throa :. inflicting a wound . Her landlady , on observing the set immediately screamed out , and a ' t tho same time rusliei towards tho prisoner , and s . eizei . 1 her arm , which she on . deavoured to disengage , aild she was about to repeat tis atteniptupon her life , when her husband , alarmed hrthi noise , entered the room , and seeing what was goii !| t toward , tried to wrest the knife from the prisoner . ' tt '

    latter , however , made every resistance that was in t « power , and repeatedly attempted to draw tho knife ajsia across her throat , and in the eftbrt made by her hastol to obtain possession of the weapon his haiids were fSf much cut . He , however , at length succeeded in wrcsanf the knife from her grasp , and as she appeared so ' iirt' ' - mined on self-destruction , he called a policeman ar . < I } s « her into custody . The injury she inflicted on ln-i-sel : «" " found on investigation not ' to be of such a danger * nature as was at first supposed . The witness added , 'i 111 the prisoner had attempted to commit suicide twice betor * while in her house ; and that witness had no doubt it was produced from her habits of intoxication , for lior huste ' was industrious , and there was no want of the comnwa necessaries of life . The prisoner ' s husband , althoa ?" aware of the situation in which his wife was placed , * not | attend , and she was accordingly committed in detw- ' of finding the required sureties .

    LAMBETH . , Mondat . —Assaulting the Police . —John" Kim *' alias Wright , and Joseph Purdy , were chafed , tliewW " with violently assaulting a police-constable , ami *'" » ' £ with attempting to rescue him from the custody <* " police . From the evidence it appeared that at « W nw on Saturday night the prisoner Kenible , who : ' lwUt IW , j weeks since was charged at this court with murderin ? «« own mother , was found fighting with another person '; Lambeth-walk , whom he severely punished . On them- " ties being separated , Kemble was R . ' ™ illt 0 cu 5 ! . i , j his opponent , and on the constable taking lw'd " } . L declared he would go quietly to the station-liou ^ } .,. " constable relinquished his hold . The officer di'l «' ¦ 1 "T . ing he would do as ho had promised , but instead ot <•;¦• he attempted to make his escape , and u ' . ioii bea $ ' taken , ho commenced a desperate attack on the ciiii' ;; ble , and Purely endeavoured to rescue lrin > . Two » ;• ;; constables came up to the assistance of rtu- ' U- |« J" - ' j officer ; and Kemble , after dealing out severe pun ' "" ., to the man who secured him , kicked another in tlie . L . " savacro manner in < i < 1 plii > 9 f < . . ™ .. t .-. f' Ma hmsoii . snili .. . .

    tortile" man ' s activity , would have ruined hmiW w The prisoner Kemble said , in ruplv to the Wi « i ' o ' >' ' , ( had been drinking rather freely , and was not consia" ? what he did ; and Puniv denied much of what hf ¦« : ' sworn to by the constables . Mr . Norton («< ttl ! 't-f , j ' Kemble ) observed , that one would have thoug ht tiw fact of his having been in custodv and renian > w « llB - picion of having caused the de ' ath of his own w >" ^ though he might be , and was , he thought . i ; : nocen . » i j ., dreadful crime , would have worked sonic ti iV 0 U !'" . ; change in his conduct , and taught him to know a >> ' better . The policemen had acted with great kr ;' . f ,., r , towards him . yet his conduct was both brutal and v » i j ; , and that of his companion was very little l " : ; . ;!; j should , therefore , commit them both for one tnoiiut W House of Correction with hard l .-ihour .

    CLERKENWELL . „ Monday . — - Infamous Co . s-duct . — David l ) u " . ' . iy , charged with the following heartless conduct :- ' 'Jj thl'OlS weeks ago a poor girl , about IS years of aiM . f ' , Mary Beckwith , who had been a servant at the ho »^ ' gentleman in ilurton-erescent , was returnhur to ' wi ' . i ter ' s house after spending the day with some frien «» . ^ . ^ she was met by the prisoner , who induced her to with him . He drugged her with liquor , and eoavc ^ y to a lodging-house , where , under promise of » 'al' ; ° i , ; r seduced her . Next morning he endeavoureil . to il * j mind by promising marriage , but at the same time »»• ^ her he was a soldier , and wanted 23 s . to buy I ! uns . ; , j ! t j She borrowed the money from her friends for h ""> "l \ ailew days after he absconded , taking with nun . w * : ' j . taining every article of clothing the poor gin I' *"' [ 0 Jj On inquiry the prisoner , who has been at ditteW' i ' j of his life a soldier , a policeman , and a cabman . ' .,., out to be married , and his wife was in court . ''^ appeared , that when about to be apprehended '" - j '^ t out two pistols and a sword , and threatened tomuiu ^ if she dared to say anything against hhu . —* manilpd . ^*

    . Goitre Frittlltgaitt*

    . goitre frittlltgaitt *

    Printed By Dougal M'Gowan, Of 17, Great M 11 ^ Street, Haymarket, In The City Of Westminster , • — ....' ' .. « H • T 1* **1 Flio * R.

    Printed by DOUGAL M'GOWAN , of 17 , Great M ^ street , Haymarket , in the City of Westminster , — .... ' ' .. « h t 1 * ** 1 flio * r .

    Office in the . same Street and ransn , «« - . g - . prietor . FEAKGUS O'CONNOR , Esq ., andpubU 3 tt Whmam Hewitt , of No . 18 , Gharies-street , Br » street , Walwortli , in the Pariah of St . Mary , * ^ j ton , in the County of Surrey , at the Offlca , ^ ^ j Strand , in the Parish of St . Mary-le-3 tr * nd j Gity of Westminster ' j Saturd » jjPebuary 22 , W *» ' j

    Untitled Article

    « . -. THE NORTHEKK , STAR . _^____ r JEBRPABY la ' ™ .

• 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/vm2-ncseproduct1303/page/8/