Current:

Northern Star (1837-1852), 1st March 1845, Edition 1 of 4, Page 4

Page 4
Page 4
4 of 8

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • THE NORTHERN STAR. SATUKDAY, MARCH 1, 1M5.
  • Text (8)
  • 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

      TJie Chairman said that the borough of Finsbury haddoneitselfgreateredit by the choice of its present representatives ; they were both gentlemen of great ability , perseverance , and courage . In proportion as a public man was courageous lie became an object of suspicion to the Government . The power of opening letters in the Post-office might be a most dangerous weapon in the hands of a tyrannical Government . He ( Mr . Taylor ) recollected that daring the time of the Sidmouth Administration , ¦ when it -was deemed necessary to get up sham plots , the letters of Mr . Coke , of Norfolk , the late Earl of Leicester , Tvere opened in order to obtain materials on which to ground a charge against him of hostility to the Government of the dav . But such conduct . - . _ . .

      POST OFFICE ESPIONAGE . GREAT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ELECTORS ASD INHABITANTS OFFINSBURT . On Wednesday night last , a meeting of the elec tors and inhabitants of the borough of Finsbury , convened by requisition , -was held at tjhe White Conduit House Tavern , Pentonville , relative to the opening of letters at the Post-oniee , addressed to Mr . T . S . Duncombe , the re presentative of the borough . The spacious hall was densely crowded . On the platform we T . Wakley , Esq . M . F .. Sir CJNapier , M . P ., and R . J . Blewitt , ^ sq ., M . P ., supported by a large number of influential electors Qfall shades of politics . Richard Taylor , Esq ., common councilman of the City o& London , was called to the chair "

      would be tolerated no longer , for tie people would not submit to such a monstrous violation of that confidence which ought to subsist between the members and their constituents . The electors of Finsbury were bound to call upon the Government to Tvipe off the stigma which it had attempted to cast on the character of Mr . Duncombe . If they did not , they would be unworthy of that reputation for public spirit which they lad hitherto maintained . Mr . LniTOJC in moving the first resolution , observed that three distinctcharges had been made against the Government—one was , that letters had been illegally nnenral ami fieLiincd at the Post-office : the next .

      that seals liad been counterfeited to conceal that examination ; and the third was , that it bad been done to " serve flic interests of certain "despotic Governments . Mr . Buncombe had called for explanation , but he had obtained no answer . By Sir J . Graham le -was met with dogged silence ; l > y Lord Aberdeen tw £ h subterfuge and false assertions ; and by Sir II . Peel with shuffling and evasion . The only answer given to Mr . Duncombe was contained in the reports of two committees wMch . did not agree with each other . Mr . Dunconibe ' s character had been most foully stigmatised , and it was the duty of his constiincntsto demand a full vindication irom the Government . The resolution was as follows ;—

      That this meeting learns with mortification and disgust That there csist 5 aitfce General I ' ost-oflice a secret spy system under wnicU letters are broken open , seals counterfeited , ami post-marks falsclv imposed , in order to deceive tiie persons to Tvlioin such letters are directed , and to whom thc-y are aftsrivar < ls forwarded , while the information tlius . obtained has in some cases been used to promote despotic interests of foreign Governments ; that this meeting strongly denounces tue existence of such disgraceful transactions , nad , refusing to be satisfied with the report of the committee published at the close of the last session , deems it essentially necessary for the honour

      of tliis counirv , aud also ibr public satisfaction and seenritr , that sfStrict , searching , awJopen inquiry should !» Instituted Into all the circumstances referred to in certain petitions presented to Parliament on this subject , in order that by such inquiry the manner in which such illegal and unconstitutional practices have been carried on , may be clearly exposed and brought to public shame . . Mr . Hodgkir seconded the motion . The question was betwefinSir J . Graham and Mr . Duncombe , the one a renegade to Lis former party , the latter a straight-forward gentleman who had stood fast by his principles , and was at all times the zealous and independent advocate of popular rights . The motion was carried by acclamation .

      Sir . Walker moved the next resolution : — That this meeting have read with indignation the statement made try our representative , 3 £ r . Thomas Dnncombe , in his place in Parliament , that his correspondence lias l > ecn clandestinely intercepted and secretly opened , under Government authority , at the Poskoffice thatin the opinion of this meeting the only excuse for the exercise of such power towards Mr . Buncombe , would be thai tte Government had good reason to deem Kin capable of conduct which , if true , would , in our opinion , render him totally unfit to continue the representative of aireeand independent constituency ; that we , therefore , feel it dae to ourselves , as well as to Mr . Duncombe , to demand from the House of Commons such an investigation into the proceedings towards him as shall-either justify the implied suspicions of the Government , or fully establish the innocence of our long tried

      andfaifhfulrenresenlafive . The Secretary then read the following letter from Mr . Dnneombe : — . . To the Electors ofFhisbury in PuJAic Mating assenMed . Gentlemen , —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of invitation , and to express to you my regret that recent-events in Parliament liave rendered it imperat ive on the borough of Finsbury to meet on my account—the fault , however , rests not with me , but with nerJIajesty ' sSBiiisters . .... . ; ; -I need -not now assure you how happy I am , at all iknes , to meet those whom it is my pride to represent , when questions affecting public interests are under their consideration , as upoa such occasions you will do me the jnstioe to admit I . have never shrunk from doing that itinehlfelttobemydutv . ¦ >;• , . . ,- , -

      tBnt , gentfe ' men , the question which jou are convened toe discuss appears to me to be of so peculiar and of so purely a personal character , that I think it would be most indelicate on my part to be present upon the occasion . In declining , however , the honour that yon Aave proposed trine , I nopal may be permitted to state that all that I I save asked of the House of Commons is that which I think I have , a right to demand , viz ., an opportunity of remoring . those base suspicions implied by the feet of the Government having violated the sanctity of my correspondence . The expression of your independent opinion , I hope , will assist me in obtaining that satisfaction without which , I am convinced , you will agree with me , I cannot continue a member of the present House of Commons with either advantage to you or credit to myself . I have the honour to be , gentlemen , , . ~ Your obedient and faithful servant , . Albany , Peb . 25 . Thomas S . Duncohbe .

      -iThe -reading of this letter produced vehement cheering ^ -- ; . ' ' ¦ - ¦ * ¦ . ' - --, --. 0 : Mr ; George IIogebs said , he -had often . addressed fikm on the mal-practices of both Whigs and Tories ]; tet never did heieel so indignant as on the present occasion . Ee had often thought and said the House of Commons was grossly- immoral , and that its members should be sent about their business , that we might have the chance of selecting better inen . ( Hear hear . ) But never T » f . ore did ' . he think them so immeasurabjy ; base ( hear ^ hear ) as they had now proved themselves ' by their '" sanction of the petty larceny Tillanies of the Home Secretary . ( Tremendous cheer ing . ) The electors of this borough had a duty to perfonn ; Finsbury was at the head of the democratic tree , ( load eheera ) , and that position most be

      maintained . He took upon himself to say that no other 638 men , except in the lowest refuse of society , would have refused Mr . Buncombe ' s just request . ( Great cheering . ) : Mr . Duneombewas a high-spirited and faithful champion of the people , and in justice to him aid themselves , they were bound to obtain such an inquiry as would either acquit Mr . Duncombe , or place ihem an a position to obtain another represen v Sir Charles Napier came forward to support the resolution and in presenting himself was received with lorn ! cheers . He said that whatever excuse might exist as " to opening the letters of foreigners suspected of plotting against their country , the Government had no right to violate the sanctity oi correspondence between a representative of the people and Ids ' constituents . Mr . Buncombe had put to

      Sir James Graham a plain simple question— "Did yon open my letters , " or did yon not *• - He could |* et no answer . The matter was referred to two committees , but the reports were silent with respect to Mr . Duncombe ; upon that part of the case they' made no Tepprt whatever . The question for the electors of Fmsbury to decide wa 3 this—he bad been suspected 'of carrying ^ on a treasonable correspondence with some persons in this country . Was Mr . Duncombe capable of high treason ? ( Cheers , and cries of No , no . ) . Well , then , yon must believe either that Mr . Duncombe was putting against the Government , or iha& Sir J . Gnutam was plotting against Mr . Duncombe .. Under these circumstances , the electors of Finsbury had done right to demand a full inquiry into the subject . The resolution was carried unanimously .

      Mr . Cooper moved the third resolution , as foll ows : — That a petitlon , enibodring the foregoing resolutions , and praying the Bouse of Commons to adopt such measures ae will effectually prevent the recurrence of the abuses complained of , be signed on behalf of this meeting by the chairman and the committee , and presented by T . "VFakley , Esq ., our worthy representative . Dr . Epp s , in an eloquent speech , seconded the resolution , which was carried unanimously . The secretary then read the petition , which was an echo of t hj resolutions , and moved its adoption . R . J . ; Blewiit , M . P ., seconded the motion , and saidle attended there to testify his high admiration

      and esteem for the man they bad chosen to represent them ; and his great detestation of the spy system adopted by the Home Secretary . His own opinion was , that Air . DnribomLe ' s letters had been opened without a warrant . The petition they were about ioadoptshould have his most cordial support , and ftrther , so long as a motion could be formed , and so long as Sir James Graham remained obstinate , so long would he support Mr . Duncombe . ( Loud cheers . ) —The petition was unanimously adopted . : ' WAKtET ; M . P ., nowrose amidst great applause , and said ^ theylad allotted him a duty which he should perform with great pleasure , and he hoped to their satisfaction . He stood there in the double capacity of a citizen elector of Finsbury to protest

      Untitled Article

      against the disgraceful spy system , and asa representative to obey ms constituents' commands . Thomas Slingsby Doncombe was as bold , as honest , as faithful a representative of the peopJe as could possibly be found or conceived of ;—( foua cheers)—a man who never dissembled—in whom there was no deception . When Mr . Duncombe first mooted the question , some of the Hon . Gentlemen turned np their very aristocratic noses , and said pooh , pooh . But that answer would not do for Mr . Duncombe . Well , at length a committee was appointed , but Mr . Duncombe was not allowed to be on it . No , he knew too much about it , and was too independent to report in favour of the Government . ( Cheers . ) Well , the committee got so deep in the love of antiquity that one of its members well nigh lost

      himself . ( Loud laughter . ) It was said that men in Parliament were " so virtuous , and so moral , ( laughter , ) that a declaration made there , was deemed better than an oath out of it . " Well , Mr . Duncombe made the declaration that his letters had been opened , and of course the charge was investigated by the Committee . No such thing . He had turned the folios of the report over ami over , very carefully , and he thought he had lost his eye-sight , for not a word did he nnd in that report relative to his Hon . Colleague . The report was unsatisfactory to Mr . Duncombe ( an extraordinary man he would have been if it had not ) . The electors of Finsbury had done themselves immortal honour by meeting as they had done that evening to defend their representative . If it had been a little girl , or an

      old maid , with an exuberance of curiosity that had been prying into their letters , it might have been excused , but a Government controiing the destinies of millions being guilty of such baseness , was disgusting and abhorrent . ( Loud cheers . ) Mr . Wakley , in the course of his speech , illustrated his argument by-a reference to the ' eaae . of the expatriated patriot , * John Frost , at the mention of whose name , the meeting rose en masse , and cheered : and cheered again ; and , continued the Hon . Member , I contended then , and have always contended , that , had justice been done , that much injured , man and his compatriots , would have been instantly liberated . ( Renewed cheering . ) But , returning to the immediate case of Mr . Duncombe , his colleague said to Sir J . Graham , "You opened my letters . " The only answer he gets is : " What I have done , I have done on my own responsibility . " Now he ( Mr . Wakley ) ,

      should like to know how to make the Home Secretary really responsible . ( Hear , hear . ) The insinuation conveyed by opening the letters of Iiis Hon . Colleague was a serious imputation on his character ; and in justice to Mr . Dunconibe ' sconstitucnts Sir James Graham ought to have stated the facts . That Government was a base one who employed Spies , but now we had a Government who were themselves Spies . ( Cheers ) . Mr . Duncombe in bis letter read that evening , had intimated that unless an inquiry was granted whereby he might clear himself of the imputation cast on his character he must resign his seat ; ( loud slioutsofno . no , no ) , that was the purport of the note . But should that be the case , it would be their pleasing duty to send him back again . ( Loud cheering ) . Mr . Wafeley concluded by saying that he should present the petition , and would do all in hi 3 power to give effect to their views . The Hon . Gentleman resumed his

      seat amid loud and long-continued cheers . -Mr . Elt moved a vote of thanks to the chairman , which was seconded by Mr . William Balls , and carried by acclamation . Three cheers were then given for Jlr . Buncombe : Ihree cheers for . Mr . Wakley , and three groans for Sir Jame 3 Graham ; and this great and unanimous meeting dispersed .

      Untitled Article

      Doxcombe Testimonial . — Central Committee , Partkenium Club Rooms , 12 , St . Martin's-lane , Wednesday , February 26 th- ; Mr , Grassby in the chair . —The Secretary was instructed to summon all the members of the Central Committee for Wednesday evening next , to receive the auditors' report , and to decide on the time when -the subscription shall positively close . Deputations were appointed to wait on the smiths at the Hole in the Wall , Chancerylane ; and also on the several Societies of Basketmakers . . - ¦ : Duncombe Testimonial . — The central committe will meet at the Parthenium Club-rooms , No . 72 , St . Martin ' s-lane , on Wednesday evening next , and every succeeding Wednesday evening . Chair taken at half-past eight precisely .

      Untitled Article

      LOUD DEVON'S COMMISSION ., The peculiar and delicate circumstances connected with the above commission led us to anticipate a very different document than the report with which the country has been favoured . The constitution of the tribunal was calculated to inspire us with jealousy and suspicion ; while the objects to which attention should be directed were likely to be altogether merged in the necessity of vindicating that class to which the commissioners ^ . belonged from ; t ; he accumulated load of odium tha ttime and neglect have heaped upon their backs . Independently of these particular objections we had the more general feeling of contempt , arising from the iact , that all inquiries into the ,

      condition of the poorer classes have been confined < to the very parties of whose misdeeds they have complained ; Under these circumstances , while we were prepared for the very natural vindication of the landlords of Ireland , we confess that their true picture presented in every line of the report has taken us by surprise . Before we offer a passing comment on the several heads under which the commissioners have presented their report , we may be permitted to observe that the wholesale apology offered for the Irish landlords comports most Btrangely with the extensive representation of the people ' s sufferings . After commenting upon the reports of a select committee or two , the commissioners , beginning at the wrong end , with a holy reverence for their order , state as follows : —

      "upon a review of ; the whole subject wefeel bound to express our opinion , that there has' been much of exaggeration and mis-statement in the sweeping charges which ; have been directed against the Irish landlords . " With great respect for the commission ,-we are of opinion that the apology should have , followed , jather than have preceded , the "sweeping charges " established by the report against the Wsb andlords . . . ,, . Now let us compare the following description of the condition of the people with the foregoing glowing apology : — - "' . _ ,, .

      "We regret , however , to be obliged to add , in most parts of Ireland there seems to be by no means a correspond ing advance in the condition and comforts of . the labour ing classes . - A reference to the evidence of most of the witnessestriB show that the agricuUtiral labourer of Ireland continues to suffer Hie " greatest privations' and hardships ; that he continues to depend upon casual and precarious employment for subsistence ; that he is still badly housed , badly fed , badly clothed , and badly paid for Ms labour . Our personal experience and observations doling our inquiry have afforded us a melancholy confirmation of these statements ; and we cannot forbear expressing bur strong sense of the patient endurance which the labouring classes have generally exhibited under sufferings , greater , we believe , than the people of any other country in Europe have to sustain . - -

      Again , under the head " Labourers" we find the following extracts : — ¦ In adverting to the condition of the different classes of occupiers in Ireland , we noticed , with deep regret , the state of the cottiers and labourers in most parts of the country , from the want of certain employment . It would be impossible to describe adequately the privations which they and their families habitually and patiently endure . It win l > e seen in the evidence that in many districts

      their only food is the potato , then : only beverage water , that their cabins are seldom a protection against the weather , that a bed or a blanket is a rare luxury , and that nearly in all , their pig and manure heap constitute their only property . "When we consider this state of things , and the large proportion of the population whlcli comes under the designation of agricultural labourers , we have to repeat that the patient endurance which they exhibit is deserving of high commendation , and entitles them to the beet attention of Government and of Parliament .

      Their condition has engaged our most anxious consideration . Up to this period any improvement that may have takeu place is attributable almost entirely to the habits of temperance in which they have so generally persevered , and not , we grieve to say , to any increased demand for their labour . We deeply deplore the difficulty which exists in suggesting any direct means for ameliorating their condition . Here again we find a repetition of the sufferings of the poor which cannot be ascribed to the mis-statements or exaggerations ' of the commissioners : and

      then we very naturally inquire as to the source from whence those grievances spring , whether from laws made by landlords , or from the illegal and uncivilised practices of those gentlemen . Upon this subject the report shall speak for itself , and from which we select the following unequivocal condemnation of the landlords of Ireland . The report says—In common with the committee of 1832 , whose language we have quoted , wefeel the impussifciiity of providing any direct remedy by legal enactment for the suffering described in the preceding extracts . ' The evil arises from the abuse of a right , of Which the existence is essential to the maintenance of property ; but although we cannot recommend any interference by law with the right , it does not follow that we should hesitate to expose the abuse , or to point out the means whioh , in our opinion , may and ought to be adopted to mitigate the evils resulting from it , ' ¦ -- ' - .

      Untitled Article

      Now then , taking the above ^ extracts as a fair representation of the sufferings of one class , and the conduct of the other class , what do we discover ? Why , that even ih ^ inweased morality of the people arising from increased temperance , has not in the slightest degree tended towards their improvement . and this " arises trom ? hb jflroaE of a rigiit , " the existence of which " is essential to the suustexance of phoperty ; " an " abuse , " moreover , for the correction of which the commissioners cannot suggest or recommend any legal remedy . Are we not entitled to ask to what end , then , all this fuss and bother ? when we discover

      that the existence of these " abuses" are essential to the maintenance of property . Suppose we say that the abuse " arises"from the middle system—from the clearance system—from bad tenure—want of improvements—consolidation of farms—recovery of rent —agency—sale of estates—want of agricultural instruction—imperfect system of emigration—want of cultivation of waste lands—total dependence of the labourers : the several heads under which the commission has reported ; and will the commissioners inform us over which of these the landlords have not a power—the abuse of which has led to the necessity of this very commission , unwilling to suggest legal remedies for the abuses existing ?

      Before we offer a few suggestions on this report , we shall first state our preference for it over all documents of a similar nature that have been laid before the House of Commons . We should attach but very trifling importance to the report in question , if placed in the hands of a jobbing "Whig Ministry , well knowing that it would be dismissed with a becoming lamentation for the grievances complained of , and a regret of the inapplicability of legal enactments for their correction—a tear for the sufferers , and a respect for the recommendations of the commissioners . Our trust , however , is , as we before intimated , that Sir Robert Peel will see in tliis report such a justification—nay , demand—for interference , as will enable him to base the right of Irish property upon some better title than the existence of an acknowledged " abuse . "

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

      IESTOE . . . Under this head we find the following observations—It frequently happens that large estates in that country are held by the proprietors in striet limitation ; and the pecuniaryr circumstances of the landed proprietors generally , arising in some cases out of family charges , and resulting in others from improvidence or carelessness possibly of former proprietors ; disable many , even of the best disposed landlords , from improving their property , or encouraging improvement amongst theii tenantry , in the manner which would conduce at once to their own interest and the puttie advantage . Many of the evils incident to the occupation of land ' in Ireland may be attributed to this cause .

      Here we have an " abuse" of great . niagnitude , an hereditary " abuse , " and let us see the legal remedy proposed by the commissioners . The report goes on thus;— ,. TTe are of opinion that , for the permanent improvement of an estate—confining that expression to such operations as may properly be considered . of . ah agricultural charaoter—tenants for life ; andotlter persons tinder legal ^ disability , shouldlc cnijHmjeraf , subject to proper and emcient restric tious , to charge tne inheritance , to an amount not excee d , ing three years' income , for such improvements , being bound to repay the principal by instalments , and to keep down the interest . This is no new principle ; Again : — -

      It must never be forgotten that an improved cultivation , with the consequent increase of produce from the soil ; and of comfort to the occupier , are not ; matters of private or individufc . interest only , but are intimately connected with the preservation of public tranquillity and the general prosperity of the whole empire . Again : —•;;; . ,, . , . _ ¦ ' ,... . > . ¦ - ¦ , . ' ¦ . We also thinkit would be desirable that extended leasing powers should / be given , undeis proper and equitable restrictions , to . tenants for life , and to boards or . corporations whose powersare' restricted by 'law ,. Bueh as incumbents as to their glebe lands /' the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College , the Trustees of Erasmus Smith , the Board of Education , - and the Trustees of Sir P . Dunne ' s and Wilson ' s Hospitals . ' . ¦ . . ' . \; ; . ' ....- ; i ! : < Again : — ' ¦ : -

      Looking generally through Ireland , we bebevethat the larger proportion ofthelandis occupied bjtenants-at-wll . There has been of late' years , from various causes , an indisposition in many landlords to grant leases ; and it appears , from , the evidence that in some cases , where the andiordis willing , the tenants decline to take them out , influenced , to a certain . degree , by the high stamp duty . Again : — - , The uncertainty of tenure is , however , constantly referred to as a pressing grievance by all classes of tenants . Itia said to paralyze all exertion , and to place a fatal impediment in the way « f improvement .

      Fromthe above extracts we learn that the uncertainty of tenure places the public tranquillity in jeopardy , paralyses national industry , and limits that supply of produce which would otherwise render us independentpf all foreign aid ,: and ' yet the present ' ' abuse" is to be allowed to remain for the maintenance of theexiatingrights of landlords ! It is somewhat re freshing , however , thatin the recommendation of the commissioners to give extended rights to tenants at will , we recognise a side-blow at the law of primogeniture , the master evil under which' the country jsuffers ; a blow , ! which we trust will be Mowed up by the total destruction of the system . In speaking of jtenure ' j ' we'may ' safely aver that certainty of tehure ^ - tiat is ; ' a lease'for ever at a . corn rent , would render all . miner considerations . unimportant .

      Improvements would then go on ; farm-houses would then be built by the tenants ; the increased value of land consequent iip ^ n the application of increased labour would lead to th £ . destruction of the consolidation system '; the recovery of rent would be a thing achieved without distress or ejectment ; agency could be effected without trouble ; the sale of estates would be of more daily occurrence in consequence of the improved price offered , for them by small holders ; agricultural instruction would become a necessary -ingredient in national education ; emigration would be a thing not thought of ; waste lands would be improved as if by magic ; the labourers' condition would keep pace with that . improvement ; county cess would be a burden easily borne ; agrarian outrages would cease , and the occupation of the Commissioners of Public Works would be gone .

      The Condition-of-Irelaud question being involved in the recent inquiry , we prefer waiting for th e appendix , whereby ., we shall ; be put in possession of the evidence of- ' 1 , 100 . witnesses , ' we presume of dififereni classes , , jfco . offering a conclusive opinion' on tKe mere skeleton with ' yfhich we have ^ beenfuinM ^ by the commissioners ; therefore , for the present , we shall content ourselves with directing attention to such extracts as we have selected and arranged under their respective heads , which fully confirm that faithful view thai we have ever taken of this monBter question . May we venture a hope that parties of all shades of politics will join in rescuing the Irish people from that state of degradation , wretchedness , and poverty to which the non-perfqrmahce of the duties of their natural protectors has brought them ?

      It is a subject to the consideration of which we shall bring our minds without anger or exasperation , in the hope that suggestions and comments may have the greater weight on those who will be called on to legislate ^ upon the ' subject ; ,, It is impossible , however , to review the whole queston without feelings ofthemost intense anxiety and doubt—anxiety for the sufferers ; and doubt lest landlords and Malthusians should unite for the maintenance of " abuses" long cherished by the one party as the means of

      maintaining existing rights ; and profitable to the other for the dependency that it entails , in another nart ' . of our paper will be found selections from the different heads under which the report is presented , and to them we beg to direct the especial attention of the reader—especially to that portion which gives the preference to . spade husbandry , and declares the growing desire for agricultural instruction , It is to the time at which this report is presented ,: and to the resolution of . the . Prime Minister , rather than to its contents , that we attach importance , ¦ ¦

      Untitled Article

      Here , then , the whole practice is called in ques tion ; and called in question , too , in a manner that must secure for the practice a legal answer , if it is to be preserved . The reasoning of Mr . Watson seems to us to be exceedingly strong . The point he puts , as to the inability of the Secretary of State to administer an oath , and consequently to receive ^ an information on which to ground a warrant , and the consequent inability to issue such warrant , seems to usto bo conclusive . If the reasoning of Mr . Watson be sound , it turns out that the practice , thtfugh so long in vogue , and so extensively used , is utterly and entirely illegal ! To us such seems to be the only conclusion to which the legal gentlemen can come ; unless , indeed , a far better answer can be given to Mr . Watson than the Solicitor-General vouchsafed on Friday night last . The reader will have seen that Mr . Watson "invited" the Somcitor-Gexeral

      to the contest ; and having been so hardly pressed "in the face of the House and the country , " he could not but attempt to reply , which he did in manner following : — The Hon . and Learned Member for Kinsale said this was like the case of general warrants , and his-Hon ., and Learned Friend had carefully searched the authorities , and come down armed with the opinions of judges on the question of general warrants ; and he said those opinions were conclusive , and that this kind of wan-ant can no more stano good than general warrants . Did his Hon . and Learned Friend know the history of general wan-ants ? lie ( the Solicitor-general ) thought not ; for if his Hon . and learnedTriend had known that history , lie would have felt bound to tell the House that general warrants existed

      by Act of Parliament till the year 10 !; that in 1694 the Act , on which their legality was founded , expired , and that consequently after that year there was no statute to empower the Secretaries of State to issue them ; but that , nevertheless , they were issued by successive Secretaries of State , till the year 1763 , when in the case which the industry of his non . and Learned Friend had discovered general warrants were pi-onouhc _ ed illegal . This was an instance how easy it was for an ingenious lawyer to produce the opinion of judges , and declare confidently what was the law , so as to persuade the House that he Lad made out a triumphant case . His Hon . and Learned Friend said , that the committee of the House of Lords had stated , in their report , that this power was not conferred by any statute . I certainly was so stated in that report ; but that was not all

      that was said . ( Hear . ) His Hon . and Learned Friend selccted a passago from the report , anu read tliat , ana omitted the reasoning on which it was founded . It was true that the report said that the act of Anne gave no power to the Secretary of State to detain or open letters , but if'his Hon . and Learned Friend had looked to the two lines before that passage , he would have found this statement . — " The terms on whieh the provisions of the Oth Anne , cap . 10 , upon this subject , are enacted , can only bo explained upon the supposition that this power was , at the time , fully recognised " ( hear , hear ) ; and then the sentence went on , " for that Act gives no power to the Secretary of State to detain or open letters , but prohibits others from doing so , except by an express warrant and writing under the hand of the Principal Secretary , for every such

      opening or , detaining . " Therefore , lus Hon . and Learned Friend had suppressed thuse two lines , and thereby induced the House to believe that the Committee ot the Ilouse uf Lords hail made a general declaration that the power of detaining and opening letters was not authorized bv statute at all . Then his Hon . and Learned Frieud " said that there were no authorities in thu books sanctioning- this practice . Now , he ( the Solicitor-General ) wondered that it had not occurred to his Hon . and Learned Friend that as the power was exercised in secret , it was not very likely that theve should be any authority respecting it on the books . If that had occurred to his Hon . ; anil Learned Prlentl , it would have saved much valuable time , which lie might have devoted to move important objects . But his Hon . and Learned Friend

      said that this was an illegal power , that there was neither statute nor common law for it , and that , give him usage since the foundation of the world for it , nothing should convince him that the power was legal , or ought to subsist . Now , it was impossible to argue-with a person who spok » in that way ; but he ( the Solicitor-General ) would hope that there were others in the Ilouse who would take a calmer view of the matter , and would agree with him , although he could not go back to the foundation of Rome , or of the world , in thinking that the researches of the committee , and the industry of the Hon . JIeinber ; for Kendal ( Mr . Wavburton ] had clearly made out , that this power was , from early times , a part of the prerogative of the Crown ; that the Crown was enabled thereby to detain and open suspicious letters ; that the power had been

      exercised from [ early times ;; that it was exercised under the Commonwealth in 1 G 5 C ; that one reason for the establishment of the post by Cromwell ' s Parliament was the facility which it was expected to give of detaining treasonable correspondence ; and in fact that the power was proved to have existed in good times—( hear ); and that iii the 9 th . of Anne it was must . distinctly recognised as residing in the principal Secretary of State . He would for one moment refer to the statute of Anne . In the 40 th section they would find it enacted , "And whereas , abuses may be committed by wilfully opening , detaining , and delaying of letters or packets , to the great discouragement of trade , comiSerce , and correspondence ; for prevention thereof , be it enacted , by the

      authorities aforesaid , that from and after the 1 st day of June , 1711 , ' no person -or persons shall presume wittingly , willingly ,, or knowingly , to open , detain , or delay , or cause , procure , permit , or suffer to be opened , detained ,, . or delayed , any letter or letters , packet oi-packets , ' after the same is or shall be delivered into the generator other post-office , or into the hands of any person or persons employed for the receiving or conveying . post letters , and before delivery to the persons to . whom they are directed , or for their use , except by an express warrant in writing , under the hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State , for every such openiug , detaining , ' or delaying . " Now , in the present reign , all the Post-office acts had been repealed and consolidated into one act . In sec . 41 of the i ) th of Anne , cap . 10 , the oath which the Post-Master-General and other officers of the

      Post-office take , was enacted . The Consolidating Act of the 1 st Victoria , cap . 33 , substituted a declaration in these terms : —' . ' I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will not wittingly or -willingly open or delay , wyoause or suffer to be opened or delayed ^ contrary-tomy atiij , any letter or anything sent by the post which shall come into my hands or custody by reason of my : employment relating to . Post-office , except by'the . consent of the persons or persons to whom the ' same shall . be directed ,, or by an express warrant in writing under the' hand of one of the principal Secretaries of State . " This exception , it was to be observed , was copied from the exception in the oath enacted by the statute of Anne . This , then , being the-state of the case , he did not understand the Hon . member for Shrewsbury ( Mr . D'Israeli ) when he said that no power was conferred on the Secretary of State , by statute , to open letters . ' The Hon . Gentleman said that the object of the Acts of Parliament was to prevent any clerk or sub-agent of the Post-office , from opening or

      detaining any letter , but that it was never intended to give any power to the Secretary of State to open letters . But , if not , why should the Legislature have introduced any mention of the warrant of the Secretary of State ? Because , if the object was to prevent any clerk or subordi . nate person from opening or detaining letters , it would have been enough to say so . ( Hear , hear . ) Why , otherwise , should words of exception be introduced at all ! The fact was , that the exception here proved the rule ; and it was effectual to shew that the Secretary of State had that power . What , then , was the result ? Why , tMs—which he humbly tendered to the House , and which he ventured to declare , as his deliberate opinion—that this being a power which was exercised at common law , and before any of the statutes to which reference . ; had been . made , those statutes did not confer it , because , the power existed when they were passed , but that they recognized it , and therefore that the power was a legal power , being so recognized and sanctioned . ( Hear , hear . )

      Now here the Solicitor General shirh the main question . He makes out what at first sight appears to be a plausible case for the users of the power : but what would he be worth ! ' as a lawyer , if he could not < lo that 9 Men whose tradt it Is to "Make the worse appear the better reason , " and

      " Who , right or wrong , plead still for gold , " are never at a loss for words and sophistries to supply the want of reasons and arguments . Such appeara to ua to be the case with the Solicitor-General . He was " invited" to show how the Secretary of State could legally issue a warrant for stopping , detaining , and opening letters ; how he could take the "information" necessary whereon to ground such warrant ; hoivhe could administer an-oath to the party tendering such information—as all" informations" to be legal , must he on oath : the Solicitor-GENEKAijwas " invited" to shqw-Aoiv all this could be done ; and he never even glanced at the points at all He took his stand on the usage ; and from that he argued the legality . " The practice , " says he , " has existed ; it does exist ; it ' has been recognised and sanctioned ; and , therefore it it legal . " Such is , in brief the argument of the second law-adviser of the Crown . ¦ ' . .. '• .

      Mr . Watson had anticipated all this . . He had argued that if the practice had not a legal foundation ; that if there did not exist authority for it ; that'if the Secretary of State could not legally issue his warrant for such a purpose , all the usage in the world would not justify the act . And so it appears to us . As for the fact relied on by the Solicitor -General , that because the practice was exercised in secret , therefore all the law-books were silent on the point ; we opine that it proves too much . Is it to be supposed that if thejpowei * was known to exist , and to be conferred by law , and accordant with constitutiona l principles , that some of the law authorities would not have even hinted at it , and " recognised" it , by

      shewing that it existed for wise and good purposes ? When BiiACkstone wrote his Commentaries , and denned the nature and the number of the different warrants that the officers of State and the Magistrates can issue ^ Ybllld lie not have spoken of the power residing in the Secretary of State to detain and open letters , had he been aivare that such a power legally existed ? And if none of our great constitutional writers ever advert to such power as one known to the constitution , is it not apparent that the secret exercise of it has hitherto prevented its toeing called in question ? It has existed it has been " recognised ; " but so were General Warrants both , in " use" and " recognised" from

      Untitled Article

      1694 to 1763 , until their - validity was contested and the decision of the Judges obtained' a ^ inj V them . Usage did not avail in that case ^ 'ttouiv General Warrants had once an Act-Qf-Pai'liaaenJ . existence ; it would hardly be likely to avail in thi case of letter-opening , where no such autiioiuty can be shewn to have ever existed for the " odious * practice , nor anything bufc usage to justif y it and an implied " recognition" in the statute of Anne

      The Solicitor-General did not accept the ma ' "invitation" of Mr . Watso . v ; he did not profess hi willingness to lay the warrant on the table of " th House , " that Mr . Duncombe might take it into th Court of Queen ' s Bench , and there try its validity The Solicitor-General did not accept this cualleQoi ' Why , we arc left to infer : and we mistake much " if the general inference be not , that h e dan not V will , however , be Mr . Doncombe ' s business to / ow him to do it . As Mr . ' Watsojt said , this is a great constitutional question . It ' n , r { , r to bethorouglily tried . If there be no authority for the " odious" practice , how greatly indebted to Mr Duxcombe , for exposing and resisting the unjust and

      illegal assumption of power , will Eng lishmen in . general be ! What a " service to the State" -will \> a not have rendered ! He will have secured for hi ^ self a niche in tlie temple of fame ! He will i-anfe with Pym and Hampdejj , and the other glories of the land , who shine resplendent in history for having resisted arbitrary power . To a full trial of the ques . tion we invite him , ' satisfied that to the uttermost the people will sustain him . Let him take tic ca « e into the Courts , before the Judges , the moment he gets into a position to be able to do so . Convict tip Government there ,, oi having acted illegally , and a successful blow would be struck at the " odious ' practice ; a blow from which the practice could

      never recover . We understand that Mr . Dowcombe ' s motion , ftj bringing the Post-office officials to the Barof , " a « s House , " is delayed by ihc forms of the Ilouse . ft was expected , that , as it affected the privileges of the Members , it would have taken precedence ' on Tu « . clay . It turns out , however , that it had to abide bv " coal-pit law "— "first come , first served . " Jir , Duxcomde ' s motion is waiting its "turn . "

      Untitled Article

      ii .. '" .. — THE LEGALITY OF LETTERrOPENING . The revelations raade by Mr . Duxcombe , of the infamies of the Post-office , are likely to lead to afar different result to that anticipated by the Government , when the subject was first mooted . The position of " supercilious silence , " at first assumed by the Home Sechetaby , was evidently dictated by a feeling that '' the House" would extend the mantle of shelter over the Executive , and screen the officials in the performance of what is temed " an odiousbut necessary duty . " In this , however , the Whig renegade " reckoned withouthishost "; forthefactwaSjthatnine-tenthsof " the House" itself were unaware of the existence even of ^ —^—~^*——*

      such an " odious power ; " and the natural surprise and indignation felt at the exposure made by Mr . Duncombb hurried Hon . Members into a course of procedure which drove the Government from its original intention of setting Mr . Duncombe and public feeling at defiance . Sir James Graham had to come down from the high ^ erc / i of " official responsibility" on to the ground of " inquiry ; " and though -he and his comrogues managed that the inquiry should be a secret one , yet the granting of even that much was a virtual defeat—a defeat that is sure to lead ultimately- to the entire suppression of the " odious" practice .

      The inquiry that Sir James Ghahasi was thus obliged to concede to the wounded feeling of " the House , " was not the only one that has resulted from Mr . Doscosibe ' s labours . The facts that he has detailed before the face of the country have set the " gentlemen of the long robe" at work : and their " inquiries " ' are somewhat different in nature to those ' . ¦ whi ch ' engaged the attention of the secret committee-men . They heard it alleged and admitted that the practice had existed for a long period of time ; and that it had been in extensive use .

      Their attention , therefore , has been directed to the ascertaining of the AUTHORITY for the practice ; whether there is any legal right for the Home Minister to stop , detain , oi open letters ; whether he can legally issue a warrant for any such purpose ; or whether it is not a practice that has existed without AUTHORITY , and been persevered in to our own times , because unquestioned : and it is more than likely that the inquiries of these gentlemen will lead to the questioning of the assumed power before the Judges of Law nnd dispensers of Justice .

      In the course of the debate on Friday night last Mr . W . H . Watson , Member for Kinsale , said : — When the question was first agitated , he ( Mr . Watson ) called upon the Government to say on what law ilie . v rested their claini to search letters passing through the Post-office , tliev being the carriers of those letters ; but lie received no information upon the subject . The Kight lion Gentleman , the Home Secretary , referred to this statute of Queen Anne and that of her present Majesty ; iiut according to the . report of the Lords' Committee , the Secretary of State could not from this source make out that he ' derived any right upon the subject . The latter statute lie ( Mr . "Watson ) had More Mm , ana the Act ( 1 Victoria , c . 3 C ) merely stated , that whoever should open or wilfully detain a letter in the Post-office should be miiitv « f a . misdemeanour , adding a proviso that this

      should not extend to the opening or detaining a letter in obedience to a warrant from the Secretary of State . But , according to the lords' report , the right of the Secretary of State to issue such a warrant depended entirely upon the common law , and there was no right whatever given by this statute . Now , he ( Mr . Watson ) had taken some pains to examine the authorities , and look into the aw upon the subject , but he could find no authority in any law-book whatever for the right of a Secretary of State to openaletter at the Post-office ; . in no text-book , and in no . reports whatever , could he discover anything of the sort . What was the right claimed and exercised ? It was not merely to seize and detain letters , but to open those letters , seal them up again , and then send them on to the par ties ; not to take the bold measure of seizine and keeping an individual ' s papers for public

      reasons , 'but to read his letters and take copies ot them , ana copies of the seals , in their passage to him . ( Hear . ) This was a great constitutional question . ( Cheers . ) To . talk of investigating the subject without inquiring into the law under which they lived was really entering into no inquiry 4 t all . the snbject-beiag ' the right of the Secretary of State by law to examine in the Post-omce the letters of the public at large , and letters addressed to Members of the House . He ( Mr . . Watson ) said -that there was no such right ; and tliat was a question which must ultimately be determined . ( Hear , hear . ) The Hon . Member for Bute ( the Hon . James Stuart Wortley ) had been pleased to ask on the previous night why was hot information laid before the House , and' evidence adduced , by those . who icoin plained ? Why , where was the evidence to he obtained iVhat letters had been opened was known only to the

      Secretary of State and his subordinates . How could evidence be produced by the'Hon . Member for Finsbury , except that he had heard certain things , and thought them probable and believed them ? The Government and its subordinates alone had the information .. ( Hear , hear . ) His Hon . Friend the Member for Weymouth ( Mr . 6 . W . Hope ) . had said that this question ought not to be discussed in the House , but in the Queen ' s Bench , or in some other coui-t ; and some other Hon . Members appeared to hold the same view , ne ( Mr , Watson ) must state , in the face of the House , that if the inquiry did not take place in Parliament it could take place nowhere . How could it take place in the Queen ' s Sench ? Howcouldit be proved thatletters had been opened ? Were the subordinates of ithe Post-office to be called 1 No one could prove the fact ; the mouth of the Secretary of State'himself was . closed . According to the decision

      of lord Tenterdenj no officer could be examined m matters relating td -the public affairs . How , then , was any indi . vlduaitbgointoacourtof lawtotry the question of right ? ( Hear . liear . ) It was possible , if the Government jvould admit what letters were opened , but not otherwise ; and if they really desired to have the question determined , they had only to avow that a particular officer opened a letter belonging to' the Hon . Member for Finsbury , and let him take proceedings at law . against that person / and then justify , under this pretended right . ( Hear . hear . ) Butuntil he i ( Mr . Watson ) heard some authority cited , he would maintain that the whole system of opening letters at . the Post-office was illegal . ( Hear , hear . ) This , subject . was very closely connected with what was at one time a great constitutional question—the right of the Secretary of State to issue General Warrants to seize papers ; and these ,

      which were declared to-be illegal in the case of Wilkes , had existed in the time of Elizabeth , in the period of the Commonwealth , and under the second Charles , and from the revolution downwards . That claim was very analogous to the present . ( Hear , hear . ) . There were two cases to which he ' wouia particularly call the attention of the House . One was the case of the editor and printer of the North Briton . The Secretary of State issued a warrant to seize aU his papers '; the .. validity of that warrant was tried , and the jury gave , very large damages against the persons concerned in issuing the warrant , And what did he Chief Justice « ay upon that occasion ? He spoke as follows : — "A warrant was granted by Lord Halifax , the Secretary of State ,-directing a messenger to apprehend and seize the printer and publisher of a paper called the North Briton , ' without any information or charge

      laid before the Secretary of State previous to his granting the warrant : " whereas every lawyer knew tliat no warrant ' " to" arrest - a person and examine his house was good without information duly laid , and the warrant itself . stating , the offence upon the face of it . " . The Chief Justice then proceeded to state that the small injury done to the plaintiff , _ or the inconsiderableness of his station , were riot material to the question of right ; of course the same arbitrary power could have been claimed over all the King ' s subjects , violating Magna CharUt , and destroying the liberties of the people . The King ' s counsel of that day and the solicitor of the Treasury endeavoured to maintain the legality of that warrant ; but his lordship said , — "To enter a house by a nameless warrant ; in order -to seize there , is worse than theSnanish Inquisition . " That was not the speech of a

      political partisan in that house , or on the hustings , but the udicial opinion of a Chief Justice . And he added , — " It would be a law under which no Englishman would wish to live an'hour . It was a most daring public attack made upon the liberty of the subject . " ( Cheers . ) Really there seemed to'be very little difference between issuing a warrant to seize . the papers of 'fthe editor and printer" of the North Briton" and issuing a warrant to examine , read , and copy letters , ( near . ) But Mr . Entiek ' s ease in the State Trials , yol . 19 , came still hearer to . the present . A special Verdict was found in that case , in reference to the warrant issued against Mr . Entick , and the case was . very elaborately argued ; the judgment of the Chief Justice affected the present case considerably . His lordship was pressed by a variety of arguments , and among others > vV . thisj that it had been . a ' usage continued for a

      long ' period . V " It began' at the Revolution , " said his lordship , - ' and is too modern to be law ^ The common law does not « begiri with the Revolution . ? ' ' . ' The warrant , ; " ¦ he added , " was an execution in ¦ the first instance , .. without previous information , or hearing of . the plaintiff— a power claimed by no other magistrate whatsoever , Chief Justice Scroggs ' excepted . " Cheers . ) "" It was argued' tliat if the Secretary of Stato tad power to commit in treason , he bath it in lesser crimes : ¦ This-T ' deny . '' Justice Kokeby said : "He is only a conservator of tlie peace . There is no law , and less justice , to justify the defendants in what , they have done if there was ^ it would destroy all comfort in society , for papers are often the dearest property that a man can ¦ have . " ( Cheers , ) If such a right as , was claimed in this case really existed , to examine and copy letters passing ibrough the Post-office , would not some instance of it , in the law books ? It

      some period , be found in was ; impossijle to suppose that it was law if it could be found sanctioned by no authority . ( Hear , hear . ) There was nothing ) iit the practice from the Revolution ; and what was tlie value of tliat ? It was only a continuance ' of illegal acts ; it was only so many Secretaries of State , from year to year issuing warrants which were illegal ; and a continuance ' of illegal acts would not constitute a legal right . In Monev ' s case , the argument from usage was urged in vain . * In reference to General Warrants , Mr . Justice Yates said— " If y ° u sllew' me a usage from the foundation of Home , it will not legalise'such a practice as this . " ( Hear , hear . ) A usage from- , the creation of the world for Secretaries of State to open letters in the Post-office would not make the practice lega 1 . . ( Cheers . ) And what sort of warrants were these ? -Warrants must be founded on information , and the offoy . ee stated on the face of them . Where was the information ? How did the Secretary of

      State take it 1 Was he able to administer an oath to tlie party ? , Certainly not .. ^ The warrants , therefore ,. were illegal . ( Hear . hear . ) It was true they were referred to in those Acts of Parliament ; but was it intended by the Acts to confer upon the Secretary of State the right to issue them ? Certainly not . They merely relieved the Postoffice authorities from penalties in acting under . liis warrants to detain letters , but . conferred no right to open letters—though the former was nearl y as bad as the latter . ( Hear , hear . ) Upon a great question like this it was of the deepest importance to the country to know what was the state of the law ; and lie invited the Solicitor-General to state , in the face of the House and of . the country , upon what authority and what grounds of . law he justified the Secretary of State in examining letters at the Post-office . It was , not of the slightest ; avail to refer to usage ; for if there was really no legal authority-for the practice , the thing was utterly and entirely illegal , ( Cheers . ) ¦

      Untitled Article

      jgT Since the above was m type , we have icamcit that it is likely Mr . Dcxcombe ' s motion will oonie on to-morrow night ( Friday ) , when hois to move it as an amendment on the proposition tliat " tha Ilouse resolve itself into a Committee of W r . ys anil Means . " We shall give the debate iu . a Inter edition , in time for Saturday morning ' s mails .

      Untitled Article

      LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON THE EMPLOY MENT OF SPIES .

      Is the course of the debate on the Post-office Iniquities , on Friday night last , Lord John Russell took occasion to sing his own praises as a very jel ? denying Minister of State . . His words were : — We all know very well that , a great many yaars ago , when Lord Sidmouth held office , that statesman thought it was a fair and legitimate means of maintaining the public peace to employ spies . ( Hear , hear . ) My opinion is , " that the spies so employed were often : 1 ;< 2 cause of the commotions and tumults they were employed to de . tect .. ( Cheers . ) Hy opinion is , that persons were

      convicted and punished for offences committed at the instigation of those parties . ( Continued cheers . ) I consider the employment of spies not only objectionable , but highlj dangerous , and contrary to the spirit of the constitution of a free country . ( Loud cheers . ) But are you prepared to say—if you determine that letters shall notheopenqd in the Post-office—that there shall not again be the employment of spies ? ( Hear , hear . ) 1 take a view cf tliac subject which leads me to think that spies ought not to b * employed . ( Cheers . ) And when a person of violent political opinions , a Chartist , who was in the counsel of those who at the time I refer , to were called physical force

      Chartists , offered me his services with the view of detecting them , I refused at once his offer .. ( Loud cheers , ) I believe , sir , that the employment of spies does not at present exist . But you have no , sanction by law to that policy ; you have no declaration on the part of this House which secures you against the employmentof spies for the future . ( Hear . hear . ) , That is a subject worthy of consideration . The secret service money is employed by the Secretary of State for that which he believes is the scrvict of the State . And if you determine that there shail bo no opening of letters in the Post-office , can you be

      securecan you rely upon it—that the Bight Hon . the Scoittut ^ of State , anxious for the preservation of the public tranquillity , and feeling himself responsible for the preservation of that tranquillity , will not have recourse to that which I think is far more objectionable than the opening of letters in the Post-office , namely , the employ meat of spies ? ( Iioud cheers . ) ¦ The employment of spies ia a most objectionable proceeding , ' for the spy frequently instigates his victim to the ' eommission of the crime he never thought of committing , andforwhichhe afterwards suffers punishment . ¦ .. '¦ . ¦ >¦'

      On the danger and wickedness of employing SPIES , we are not about to differ from tlie Noble Lord . On that head we have opinions quite as decided as his own , and perhaps a great deal more so . But while we shall not quarrel with the late Home Secretary for his denunciation of the spy-syatein in general , we shall take exception to the inferenoe he intended to be drawn from his statements , that /« had never resorted to the infamous practice . He makes a great merit of having " declined" tie " offered" services of the " violent Chartist . " We remember that he did so at the time such " offer *

      was made : but though he did "decline" such " offer , he did not " decline * the services of Ms-own tpke who were actively at ' work , at that very time Lord John " dedintd" the . ' " offer" made to him , and boasted of it , and boasts of it again ; but he did not decline the services of Harrison at Bradford and Leeds , the scoundrel who ' received £ 80 in a few weeks from the chief-constable of Bradford , for ¦ procuring the conviction and punishment of parties for offences committed at Hia instigation ! Lord Sow , when he uttered Iiis unseemly boast , had surely not heard the statement of Mr . James Stuam Wobiibt ,

      only the night before , ' who told "the House" tbat ' he had drawn the fact of the amount of money paid to the SPY from his own mouthin open court !• Lord John did not "decline" the services of one of the Mozeleys of Leeds ) who was " instigating" to " physical force outbreaks" at the time that he was in the pay of the Leeda Police , £ 72 having been set apart by the Watch Gommitteeforthatpurpose . Lord Jonsdidnot " decline" the services of the entrappers of Johs Frost , who concocted their hellish plans in the back parlour of a certain " moral force" shop in *

      Strand , and who hurried a quiet and inoffwai ^ man to destruction . Lord John did not " decline " the services of the instigator of poor HouBKBRr and Clayton at Sheffield , who got his vietims " ¦ nnra&d " so severely ^ that death humanely released thaafcoift Lord John ' b prison-torture ! Lord John did W& " decline" the services of atrocious miscreants oi those occasions ; and his doing so in the case where the " offer" was made to him , was only because to had . his own spies , performing his own work t « his perfect satisfaction .

      But about this same " Offer , " and the party so 11 offering . " We believe the fact to be as stated , and have before published it in the Star . At the time that Lord John's own spies had " instigated" to "physical-force" outbreaks , and had " induced the commission of crimes , " Peier Hoey and Joosph Crabtree , of Barnsley , were " convicted" of having . attended a meeting in that town , at whio fi they had taken no part whatever . But for awh bare attendance they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment each . The sentence was a most savage and inhuman . one . Peter Hoey was , and is , a respectably quiet , good-disposed subject . He was known to Captain Wood of Sandal , near Wakefield , whomanifeated

      a great intereat in hia fate , and used all the influence ho could bring to bear to obtain a remission of th e monstrous sentence . Of course the application \ w to be made on behalf of both parties , Hoey and Cba ?' tree . Mr . Gmw , thcnM . 1 ., waited personally Lord John , at the Home-office , and enforced the aP ' plication on Lord Johx's attention . As his answer , Lord John put into Mr . Gully's hands a letter that he had received from Ciubikbe , offering that , if re leased from imprisonment , he would " peach , " and tcllall& knew of the intentions of tlie " physical force" Chartists . God knew that aUhV had to tell , Lord ^ knew well enough before ; for Us own spies had n " been idle in INSTIGATING ! but the " offer" w «

      The Northern Star. Satukday, March 1, 1m5.

      THE NORTHERN STAR . SATUKDAY , MARCH 1 , 1 M 5 .

      Untitled Article

      ' . 4 " . ' THE- ^ Q ^ T ^ M ^ y A ; R ,..: i- ; ..,: ... ¦ - ,. -.- - - ^ . .- ,,,,,, ~^^ ., ~~ Mn ^ ^ $ & : _ ' I' ' ---.-.. ' " ~* ~ - - - " - , " ¦ ¦ - ^—^— " - — - —" 1 ^™—~ " *^——^—^^^ -M « M ...... j ^^^^^^ M

  • Citation
    • Northern Star (1837-1852), March 1, 1845, page 4, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1304/page/4/