rose to move, pursuant to notice,

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the Judges who presided at the Assizes held in the city of Glasgow, in the month of May last, and especially into the circumstances attending the trial of Alexander Walker, accused of an assault with intent to ravish a girl of tender age, named Grace Macfarlane."

He regretted that he felt it his duty to bring forward this subject, for it was one which referred to the misconduct of one of the highest criminal judges of Scotland. He had not come to that determination until he had well considered the course which he was about to pursue, and until he found his own view confirmed by a great many persons in his own part of the country. At the late assizes held at Glasgow, a person was tried for assaulting a young girl, who was not thirteen years of age, with intent to violate her person. In Scotland they had a public functionary who was now in that House, namely—the Lord Advocate, whose special duty it was to be public prosecutor in all cases of criminal delinquency. That individual, either in his person or in the person of his representatives, was in fact the grand jury of Scotland, and it depended entirely upon the manner in which cases were brought before him or his representatives, whether or not any particular case should come before the Criminal Court. Previous to the trial of any criminal in Scotland the evidence against him was first taken before the local court, which was called the Sheriff's Court. It was then transmitted to the Lord Advocate, and after being sifted by him, or his deputies, it was decided whether or not the case should be brought on for trial. Such were the stringent measures taken to purge and purify the evidence before any criminal was brought up for trial. The Judges also were appealed to by the counsel on both sides as to the relevancy of the indictment, and after it had been decided that it was relevant, the Judge had no further right to interfere with the trial. Now, he had to complain of a most unprecedented and extraordinary interference on the part of the Judge in the present case and he had to ask the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into these singular proceedings. In the case to which he had to call the attention of the House, the Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Wood were the presiding Judges. It was a regulation in Scotland that trials for rape should be tried with closed doors, and in this case that regulation was complied with. The oath administered to juries in Scotland was of the most solemn character. He admitted, that the usual forms were observed, and that the jury were chosen in the usual manner. The jury proceeded to the trial of Alexander Walker, for the assault on the girl, and Lord Wood was the presiding Judge, when the case was in so extraordinary a manner broken in upon. In order to put the House in possession of the most accurate information he had been able to obtain upon the subject, he should read to them a letter he had received from one of the ten jurymen who had protested against the course which the proceedings had taken on the occasion. The hon. Gentleman then read the letter as follows:—

would only state such circumstances as he thought would constitute grounds for resisting his Motion. The hon. Member had alluded to the nature, the powers, and the duties attaching to the office he had the honour of holding; he was fully sensible of the importance of those duties and the responsibility which attached to their exercise; and, therefore, he had endeavoured, being obliged to entrust the performance of some of those duties to other persons, to select such persons as he thought most competent to discharge them; and be subscribed, in every respect, to the character given by the hon. Gentleman to Mr. Muir. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that a prisoner was not put upon his trial till his case was investigated before some local magistrate, and till such a body of evidence was adduced as would justify the committal of the prisoner. That being done the examination was submitted to those who acted with him in the office of Lord Advocate, and they saw if the evidence was sufficient to put the party on his trial. In the case of Mr. Walker, the public prosecutors were of opinion that the evidence adduced before the magistrate was sufficient to put him on his trial; but any person who watched the progress of trials, and particularly criminal trials, must be aware that the evidence adduced at the trial was not in all respects the same as that which the public prosecutor had reason to expect. In this particular case the trial proceeded with closed doors, under the authority of a statute which directed that this course should be adopted in cases where the evidence was unfit to be heard. And the charge against the Judge, as he understood it, was this, that during the progress of the trial there was an undue interference, not on the part of the presiding Judge, but on the part of the Lord Justice Clerk, who was said to have conducted himself in such a manner that a case was abandoned which ought not to have been abandoned, and that a party was allowed to go away who ought to have been convicted. He did not admit that a Judge had a constitutional right to stop the course of a trial which in the opinion of the public prosecutor ought to proceed. He thought nothing could be more conducive to the convenience of the public than that, when the Judge saw that the principal witness, on the credibility of whose testimony the main weight of the case rested, was unsupported, and that the other witnesses examined did not bear out the evidence—he thought nothing could be more judicious or less improper than the Court apprising the prosecutor of that fact, leaving him to decide whether he should take any further steps to establish the case. Undoubtedly in that case public opinion would sanction the prosecutor in abandoning it, he having the opinion of the Judges in favour of that course. Now the facts as they appeared on the record had been returned, and it would appear that the prisoner having pleaded not guilty, an interlocutor of relevancy was pronounced, that being the usual course of proceeding in the Scotch Courts under such circumstances, and forms of proceeding being settled and certain facts admitted before going to trial, the witnesses were then examined—the girl who was said to have been injured, the woman in whose house she lodged, and one or two others; and then after hearing the opinion of the Court the prosecutor abandoned the case. The prisoner was not heard in his defence at all—the time for that had not even arrived, and on the evidence as put forward by the prosecution the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. Now if, under such circumstances, the foreman of the jury who had returned that verdict, without hearing the evidence on behalf of the prisoner, had pronounced the man guilty, he could only say that he thought it most fortunate that the prisoner had not been tried and sentenced by that jury. If the jury had not returned any verdict at all it would have been the duty of the Judge to have dismissed him simpliciter from the bar, and he never could be tried again for that offence. They had two forms of verdict in Scotland—Not Proven, and Not Guilty;—and he had imagined that in that case the jury would have returned a verdict of Not Proven. It appeared that the clerk entered the verdict of Not Guilty, and read it to the jury, asking them if that was their verdict. No observation was made at the time the verdict was recorded, and the Protest to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not given in till the next day. There was no objection made to the Clerk of the Court entering a verdict of Not Guilty; and it appeared to him that nothing was more likely than that the Protest formed a portion of the waste paper which accumulated upon the Bench during the trial of criminal cases. It was said that the Lord Justice Clerk had improperly interfered in the case, but the House was probably aware, that while one Judge conducted the proceedings, the other sat beside him to give any assistance that might be requisite. In the particular case before the House both the Judges were of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the case, and it was then suggested that the case ought to be abandoned. The Advocate Depute, however, thought it better to call further evidence, and accordingly the medical gentleman was examined, and the Court having then repeated its opinion that there was no case to go to trial, the Advocate abandoned it. He was stating these facts not upon mere opinion of his own, but upon the authority of the Advocate Depute himself, who had communicated with him upon the subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman read a letter from the Advocate Depute in which he stated that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction, and he had not pressed the case further. Now, that was the statement of the case from a person whose capacity for managing matters of that kind even the hon. Member opposite would not question, and under all the circumstances he really could see nothing to blame in the conduct of the Court or the prosecutor. The conduct of the Judge was said to be exceedingly overbearing, but he could not gather that such was the fact from the statement that he had just read. It was also said that he had been promoted over the heads of other members of the Bar, but he begged to say that that learned Lord had for nine years held the office of Solicitor General; that at that period he was at the Bar, and was then elected Dean of the Faculty—the highest honour that could be conferred upon him by his learned brethren. He had been for eighteen years at the top of his profession, and that he thought was quite sufficient to convince the House that he was no ordinary man. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman had established any grounds for the reflections he had cast upon that learned Lord, nor did he think that any case had been made out which called for the interference of that House, and he trusted they would feel it their duty to negative the Motion of the hon. Member.

believed Mr. Muir never intended to give up the case, and with regard to the Protest to which the learned Lord Advocate had attached so little importance, he had abundant reason to believe that the whole of the fifteen jurymen coincided in it. They said that it was not their verdict—that it had been put into their mouths, and they wanted more evidence to be laid before them. Now the unfortunate girl was turned out upon the world with obloquy upon her character, and without a fair panel; and the man got off without any punishment.

said, that he had to return his thanks to those Gentlemen who had given him precedence on the present occasion. He must say that at an early part of the evening, when this House was made at four o'clock, he did not then discover the great anxiety of the Government to have this matter discussed, as there were then none of the Government Officials present to request permission for him to be allowed to bring this question under the consideration of the House. There was not one single Member of the Government in his place at four o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker alone had made up the number to forty Members, so as to constitute a House. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) might depend upon it that the public would never be satisfied unless the Committee were granted for which he was about to move. The public mind was filled with considerable disgust and alarming apprehension in reference to this matter, which was much increased by the tone in which the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had discussed this subject in the first instance. He knew not how the Government intended to meet his Motion. He supposed that they intended to treat it as a vote of confidence. He did not know whether the representative system were to be completely set aside and when any question was brought forward inconvenient to the Government, the Minister was to stand up in his place and to say that this was a vote of confidence. This question should be permitted to stand upon its own merits, and should not be viewed in the light of a vote of confidence. That was the way, however, they were latterly accustomed to see important questions treated in that House. He considered this most unfair and unconstitutional. Hon. Members would vote against his Motion, because it was made a vote of confidence, in a way which it was notorious they did not really mean. He did not know what answer would be given to those parties who had been aggrieved by having their letters secretly pried into. Were they to be told that they could go to law? If that were all the answer which was to be given to their complaints, it would be most unsatisfactory. The answer which the right hon. Baronet (Sir, J. Graham) had given on this subject was considered by the public the most unworthy of a Minister of the Crown that had ever been uttered. Who was to go to law? Was it the Minister of the Crown? Who was to be the defendant on this occasion? Was it to be Mr. Mazzini, or others similarly situated? Why, he said, that there were hundreds of letters opened in the Post Office upon the authority of Government. He wanted to know who was to be defendant, and who were to be the witnesses for the persons whose letters had been opened? Was the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) to be the defendant, or the Postmaster General? Were his subordinates of the Post Office to be the witnesses? What chance under these circumstances could any man have in going to law? The law officers of the Crown would, no doubt, stand upon the technicality of their case, and would call on the complaining parties to prove their case. They might not have the legal proof, although they had the moral conviction that their letters had been opened. He said that such an answer was unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. The conduct of the Government would be tried at the bar of public opinion. He would not go to any attorney's office to seek for justice in this matter. It was a question between all the people of England and the General Post Office, acting upon the authority of the Government. The Motion he was about to make was for an inquiry into the general system, and was to the following effect:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into a department of Her Majesty's General Post Office, commonly called 'The Secret or Inner Office,' the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office are discharged."

And in order to show that the Motion was not applicable to one particular case, he meant to add the general words with which he concluded his former Motion—viz.:—

"That the said Committee do report their opinion to the House, as well as upon the expediency of making any alterations in the law uuder which the secret opening, delaying, or detaining, of Post Letters is conducted."

Although the Motion was more general than the former one, he begged it to be distinctly understood, that he did not retract one single charge he had made against the Government on the question of opening letters. He had before maintained that an infraction of the law had been committed, and he had also stated, and now repeated, that he did not fix the abuse of the powers which were vested in the Government on the right hon. Baronet alone. He was not personally responsible. The Government must equally take the blame. He did not retract one single change that he had made—viz. that within the last two years, there had been a most unscrupulous use made of the power vested in the Government in opening the letters of different parties, and to a very great extent; and he believed that if an inquiry were instituted, he should be able to prove, that, so far from the right hon. Baronet only having done what every Secretary of State had done since the time of Queen Anne, there had been more letters opened contrary to law within the last two years, than had been opened within the last tea or twenty years. He understood that there existed in the General Post Office, an office which was commonly called or known by the subordinates of the establishments, as well as by the superior authorities, as "the secret or Inner Office." In this office these deeds of darkness took place. It was a sort of Star Chamber—a sort of Post Office Inquisition. Letters were carried into that place, where they were examined, and from thence a message was sent to the Home Office, and copies were taken of these letters, according to the value of their contents. Sometimes, he understood, a whole bag was taken down. When the mail arrived, the messenger said, "Give me such a bag. I want the Dublin bag," or "the Brighton bag," or some other bag. The bag was then handed over to him. He was informed, that this was the case, and he would prove it. The bag had been taken into this office, and kept there for an hour and an hour and a half, then carried back to the sorter, and delivered to the person who distributed the letters. These sorters did not know what had transpired in this secret office; they did not know how many letters had been opened or how many detained. The right hon. Baronet would not let him have a copy of the warrant, but he had seen a copy. He understood, and that was capable of contradiction if not true, that at this moment, day after day, the letters of foreign Ministers were opened and read; that at all events they went into some other office, and no one could tell whether they had been opened or not; but it was pretty generally known in the Post Office that the letters of Foreign Ministers were at this moment inspected, read, and examined, and extracts taken from them before they reached the hands of those Ministers. Were Foreign Ministers aware of that? If that was true, it required explanation. If it were guilty of conduct like that, it was a foul stain upon the honour of this country; and a foul stain it would be considered, at all events, in France, if the speech of M. Guizot was true, which he made the other day in the Chamber of Deputies. According to Gallignani's Messenger of Saturday last.

"M. LEON DE MALLEVILLE said—It is with pain I have seen the accusation of the hon. Member of the British Parliament, Mr. Duncombe, republished in the Moniteur without any contradiction. The Ministers probably will be obliged to me for giving them this opportunity of declaring, in the most public manner, that the privacy of letters is respected by law and in fact; for it is to the honour of the Government of July to have shut the cabinet noir, and I sincerely hope it will never be re-established.

"M. GUIZOT (speaking from his place) said—The hon. Member who has just spoken, is quite in the right. In law and in fact, the privacy of letters is completely respected in France, and we have not thought it necessary (nor can any one think it is so) to contradict all the errors which may be uttered in respect to this either in England or elsewhere (very good.)

"M. AYLES.—Is the privacy of letters equally respected as regards natives and foreigners?

"M. GUIZOT.—Both as regards natives and foreigners."

That was the statement of the Minister of Foreign affairs in France. He took that as an official declaration, and, of course, he was bound to believe that it was true. Therefore, having said, in his place, as to the opening of these letters, that it might suit the air of France, Russia, or Austria, but would not suit the air of England, so he begged most humbly to apologise to the French nation, and to the French government, for this foul aspersion upon their character, believing, that if it were not true, M. Guizot would not stand up in his place and state that the secresy of letters was observed in France. The question was then brought within a narrower compass. It was said before that it was an un-English custom, but it now appeared to be peculiarly English, particularly in the way we carried it out; for he found that in Austria even, if not always, but nine times out of ten, whenever any letters were opened they were re-sealed with the government seal, by which it was known that they had been opened by authority. He had got proof of that. In May last a merchant ship, having brought many letters from Madrid, touched at a port of Dalmatia. The Austrian authorities took possession of the letters, broke the seals, read them, re-sealed them with the official seal, bearing the double-headed eagle, and gave them back with the words "opened by authority." And very often Ferdinand, Grand Duke of Tuscany, after perusing letters detained at the Post Office, was in the habit of writing underneath "Vidit Ferdinandus." In England there had never been an instance of any mark being made of a letter having been secretly read at the Post Office, but on all occasions the party was kept in ignorance of his secrets having been disclosed to the Government. It had been stated in another place, with regard to Mazzini, that only one warrant had been issued for one letter only of Mazzini's. The right hon. Baronet had never yet admitted that he had issued a warrant for the opening of Mazzini's letters. We had not yet arrived at that. He did not know whether they would get that out of him this evening. In his opinion he had already said too much, but having said so much, the public would not be satisfied unless he said more. A correspondent of the Morning Chronicle furnishing his name to that paper, and who was stated, on the authority of the paper, to be a most respectable individual, said—

"The Duke of Wellington denies that Mazzini's letters were opened at the instigation of the Sardinian government. I am convinced when his Grace made that avowal that he felt convinced of the truth of it. But I can bring forward proof that the letters of this individual were detained and opened and copied, and which copies were handed to the Sardinian embassy at the request of 'an individual connected with the Sardinian government.' This is, therefore, a play upon words. This is, however, not all. The extent of this system is carried on wholesale, and perhaps rightly so; because if we oblige one country, why should we not do the same to all? What does it signify whether we open one letter or one hundred? The stigma is the same. The writer of the present letter has had several letters opened and detained, not even forwarded to the party; and this at the request of a very, very small state—or, to be better understood, at the request of its minister, or some one connected with the state as a 'goer-between.' These letters, being all relative to one subject, were all detained—I should say suppressed—of no political character, but certainly of a grave nature as regarded the judicial proceedings of the place respecting an awful calamity. This is an undeniable fact, as stated to me here by an authority, who charged me with having written about certain matters, although I was so friendly with them, &c. I therefore trust the country will insist upon the expunging this statute from our code; and until this is done I for one shall dispatch my letters through other channels than the British Post Office, or present designation, Spy Office.

"Hamburgh, June 22, 1844."

It was said that only one warrant had been issued for the opening of one letter of this individual; but, notwithstanding all that had been staled in another place by a noble Duke, he was in a condition to prove that sixty or seventy letters had been opened. He repeated, again, that this had been going on for the last two years in the most unscrupulous manner. During the disturbance, in 1842, two individuals were sent into the manufacturing districts from this secret office—this Star Chamber. They went from place to place opening letters. Whose letters were opened God only knew—in all probability everybody's. He should like to know under what authority these individuals could act. There could not have been a special warrant for each opening; they must have had general orders to go into the manufacturing districts and open everybody's letters from whom they might collect any secret. The provincial post offices were not trusted with this odious task. It might be said that the reason for this was political commotion. Granted; admitting that you expected the whole of the manufacturing districts to burst out into one continued blaze, were you acting according to law in sending individuals down with that sort of general power? It was utterly impossible that either you or they could know the letters they were to open. He believed that a wholesale opening of letters took place. He had been so informed, and, if this inquiry were granted, he could furnish proof of it. He said also that bags were carried to the secret office. When a particular bag was wanted no one but those in the secret office knew whose letter was opened. After the letters were sorted, and they were in the hands of the letter-carrier for distribution, he was told to give the letters of such and such a street,—"I want the letters of the Albany," for instance. In 1842 the letters of the Albany were asked for. A great number of gentlemen lived in the Albany. His right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh lived there. The noble Lord the Member for Newark lived there in 1842. That was the way in which it was done in reference to streets, and that he presumed would not be denied. If it was denied there were individuals who would prove it. The House could well understand the difficulties with which he had to contend in unravelling this matter of the Post Office inquisition. Since this question had been first mooted in Parliament individuals had been called before the Post Office authorities, and told "at your peril say one word to any one who asks you questions." They had also been examined as to whether such and such a person asked questions, and at the present moment their lips were sealed. They were perfectly right in not uttering another word in reference to this transaction, but if a Committee were granted these persons would come forward and tell us the whole truth, and he was satisfied nothing but the truth, whomsoever it might affect. His other charge against the Government was, that they had opened letters at the instigation of Foreign Powers, and to a very great extent—the letters of Polish exiles, Italians, and other parties. What had this been done for? What had we to do with misunderstandings in Italy? How little was it known by foreigners that England was guilty of such treachery. Mazzini himself only the other day received a letter from one of his expatriated countrymen (the son of an Austrian admiral), who had taken refuge at Corfu, dated May 1, who wrote thus. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet had seen this letter. He said, "Now that I have got my foot upon British soil, relying upon the well-known loyalty of Englishmen, you may write to me in my own name." Poor deluded man? What did he do in this letter besides? After congratulating himself that he had arrived on English soil, he thanked the individuals who had assisted him in his escape. These names were found in this letter, the letter was handed over to the Austrian government, and these individuals were immediately thrown into prison; they knew not why nor wherefore. At this moment fifty or sixty individuals were in prison, and it was generally suspected, now that the thing was unravelled, that they were suffering imprisonment in consequence of the base information of the British to their ambassador, and communicated by the ambassador to his own government. There was no habeas corpus in those countries, and these individuals were obliged to remain in prison, until by torture or protracted incarceration they could be induced to make a confession. He had said so much on this subject the other evening, that he was unwilling to trespass longer upon the House; but he said that there was a feeling in the public mind which required satisfaction. The position in which the question now stood was neither satisfactory to the public honour, creditable to the House, or honourable to the Government. He wanted the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and not, as the right hon. Gentleman had attempted on the former occasion, a desire to mystify the subject by saying that he had issued a warrant for opening the letters of one of those individuals who had presented petitions, but he would not say which, and that the petitioners had no reason to Complain, as the warrant no longer existed, for he had withdrawn it. With regard to Mazzini, if it was necessary to examine his letters at all, there was just as much reason for continuing to examine his letters now as there was when you withdrew the warrant; and that you must therefore, have withdrawn the warrant because you were apprehensive of the exposure that was about to take place. As to the other three individuals who you said had no reason to complain—that was partly true, for he did not believe that the letters of these individuals addressed to them at the Post Office had been opened. He had no proof of that; but of this he had proof, that letters addressed by those three individuals to Mazzini had been opened; and they had a right to complain, because, until the letters came into the possession of Mazzini, they were still their letters, and, therefore, they had a right to complain that their secrets should be known. As to the letter of Lovett to Mazzini, the stamps on it proved that it had been opened, as certain as it could be proved that the right hon. Gentleman had his hat on. A great number of the letters were written merely as a trap. This opening of letters had been suspected for two years, and therefore it was thought right to try a few experiments. There was a paragraph in one of the letters which said that the Emperor Nicholas was coming over to this country, and that his reception, particularly amongst the middling and working classes, would not be flattering or complimentary. The next morning there appeared in one of the papers an authentic contradiction that the Emperor Nicholas was coming to this country; but, notwithstanding that, five days afterwards he did appear, and to the great astonishment of these individuals who had read the paragraph stating that the Emperor Nicholas was not coming. He did not say that that was any proof that these letters were opened; but it was an extraordinary coincidence. Of course it would be no proof in a Court of Law, but he wanted the right hon. Baronet to satisfy the public that the letters of those persons who were not suspected of a treasonable design were not unscrupulously opened, and that there had not been a gross breach of confidence committed in this great department. The right hon. Baronet as a Minister and paid servant of the public, was responsible to the House. The establishment of the Post Office was a source of revenue to the country and a tax on the people, it was a monopoly, and people were compelled to send their letters through the office, if they did not, they were liable to a penalty. Were they only compelled to send their letters through the office in order that the Government might examine them? If it were intended to continue to open the letters of the people, proclaim it. He found no part of the Act of Parliament which authorised the opening of letters, which justified the committal of a forgery and fraud; there was undoubtedly a power to detain and delay the letters, but there was no authority to reseal them and commit a fraud. The Solicitor General was in his place, and he hoped to hear from him the construction which he put on the Act of Parliament, whether it allowed the opening of foreign ministers' letters by a general warrant, and then afterwards, on notice sent down by the Secretary of State, without any warrant at all. He maintained that this question could not rest where it was. He hoped he had made out a primâ facie case for inquiry; it would not do to entrench yourself behind the solemn official silence which you had recourse to on a former occasion; nor would it satisfy the country or the public, to be supported in that solemn silence by a majority, which appeared ready to carry you through any act of this sort, which was most odious and offensive to the people.

Sir, I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Bath for not following the hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, and I am sure that the House will feel that I am entitled to a hearing immediately after that hon. Gentleman. Sir, I am most anxious that the House should believe the assurance I now give that on the part of Government there was the most earnest desire that this discussion should not be postponed, and that a House should be made. Sir, if any Member of the Government was more anxious than another upon the subject, I am that man, and I rejoice in the opportunity now given to me of addressing you. The hon. Gentleman says he imagines that Government are about to call for a vote of confidence—of blind confidence—that it is our wish to conceal some portion of the truth, and to mystify the House, as, on another occasion I am charged with having attempted to do. Now, Sir, I may appeal to the House whether it be not in a great measure owing to my frank disclosure of the truth that this question is now under discussion. I say I might have given an evasive answer, which would have baffled inquiry, but I scorned any such subterfuge. In honour I could not have given any such answer. Having issued more than one warrant, I was bound in honour to say so and to reject every evasion, whatever might be the consequences personally to myself. Conscious, that I have so acted, I think it is somewhat hard to say that I attempted to mystify the House. The hon. Gentleman expects that I shall again say to-night, that if anything illegal has been done, a legal remedy lies open to the party aggrieved. Now, Sir, that was not an improper, although it might have been an unsatisfactory answer. I think it was a just and constitutional answer; and I cannot conceive any illegal act committed—any great injury inflicted by a public servant of the Crown, in respect to which the laws does not provide a remedy and redress. But, however that may be, the answer having proved unsatisfactory on a former occasion, I am not about to repeat it now. The hon. Gentleman has said that this is a question between the people of England and the Government whatever in its early stage the question may have been, I admit that it has now assumed that aspect. On a former occasion I said that I had not undervalued the importance of this discussion from the first. I said that it was a question, involving great national interests, and naturally exciting deep national feeling. I repeat that I so regard it. I consider it a question of grave importance, and it is my intention to prove that I so consider it. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman has correctly treated it as a question between the people and the Executive Government. But the hon. Gentleman has said more. He has said that within the last two years—he has specified the period—within the last two years there has been a most unscrupulous use of this power on the part of the Government; he has designated it a use contrary to law. A more grave charge cannot be preferred against any Government by any Member of Parliament. [Mr. T. Duncombe: I used the same words on the former occasion.] I must really beg the hon. Gentleman not to interrupt me—I did not interrupt him. I was about to state that, important as the subject is, its importance is considerably magnified by the assertions which have been made on a former evening here and elsewhere, and which have been circulated by the press throughout the country, and it has still further increased in magnitude this evening, by the bold assertions and assumptions now for the first time made by the hon. Gentleman himself. He says it is notorious that, as the mails arrive, a call is raised from the secret office for the Brighton bag or the Dublin bag; then for individual letters, addressed to particular persons; and at last he went the length of saying that he believed that everybody's letters were opened. I took the hon. Member's words down. If I am wrong, I am open to correction after I sit down, but I really must appeal to the House for an uninterrupted hearing. The hon. Member asserted, that first there was a cry for certain bags whenever the mails arrived—then that demands were made for the letters of whole streets—he specified the Albany as an example, and then he went on to say—I am sure the hon. Member used the expression—that everybody's letters were opened. I am sure that he used the expressions that the opening of letters was wholesale—that it was difficult to unravel the mystery—that I had attempted to mystify the House—and that I had already said so much that I must now say more. I am disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the time has arrived when it is my duty to say more. When I consider the state of the public mind—so sensitive—so honourably sensitive upon this subject—when I consider the efforts which have been made to inflame it, assiduously made, successfully made, designedly made, to create a false prejudice—I agree with the hon. Gentleman, that the time has arrived when I must say more—when it is my duty to say more—and when I am resolved that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth shall be disclosed. Now, Sir, when I last addressed you on this subject, I addressed you under circumstances very different from those which now present themselves to my consideration. My immediate predecessor in the office which I have the honour to hold had stated, in the most solemn and positive manner, in his place in Parliament, that he believed that the power given to Secretaries of State as to delaying and opening letters, was a power necessary for the safety of the State, that it was exercised on the responsibility of the Secretary, that he himself had exercised it, and that he had no reason to believe that I, his successor, had used the power in a manner inconsistent with my duty or different from the manner in which my predecessors had employed it. It was under these circumstances that I addressed the House when the hon. Member last made his Motion, and when I followed him in debate. Are these the circumstances under which I now address you? Sworn servants of Her Majesty, Privy Councillors, versed in affairs of State, conversant with the habits of office, well knowing what it had been their duty to do, and what their predecessors had done have thought fit deliberately to impugn my conduct—the right hon. Member for Edinburgh for one, has not thought it unbecoming his station and abilities—possessed as he is of powers of declamation perhaps hardly equalled in this House, he has not thought it unbecoming of him to come down—I fear not without preparation—and to pour forth the most impassioned language; pointing out to the indignation of the House and the public—not the law—not the system—but me, the Minister of the Crown, acting in the discharge of an official duty, well known to my predecessors and exercised by them. He said, I think, that it was not to the legal existence of such a power that he objected, but to the departure from the established mode of its exercise—to the manner, in fact, in which I had employed it. Did he stand alone? Did no other sworn Councillors of Her Majesty say the same thing? What was the tone of the noble Member for Sunderland? These Members might not, indeed, be conversant with the details of the administration of the office I have the honour to occupy, but I see in his place the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, not my immediate predecessor, but one who held the Seals of the Home Department for several years; he knows the practice of the office; he knows what he did in that office; yet he also did not think it inconsistent with his duty to vote in favour of a Motion for inquiry, not because he objected to the existence of the legal power, but because, forsooth he said he was of opinion that it had been exercised by me not in the accustomed manner, and according to usage. What, let me ask, has been the inevitable effect of the Motion so made and so supported? To induce a conviction that I labour under a stigma peculiar to myself, of either having introduced a new practice, or of having departed in some important particular from precedents long established, not only by the practice of my immediate predecessor, but of my predecessors from an early period. I will tell the House frankly that, however, unworthy the attempt thus to crush any individual who is a political opponent; there is no load of obloquy to which I would not submit in silence if I believed it was for the public good that investigation should be withheld any longer. But after what has taken place within the last ten days—after the votes given on the former occasion by the noble Members for London and Sunderland, and by the right hon. Members for Edinburgh and Devonport, all Cabinet Ministers, and by other Gentlemen, some more and some less conversant with the practice of the executive Government, I do say, that, the maintenance of this power without inquiry is impossible, and that a full inquiry may now be made without any sacrifice of what is due to the Crown or to the public, while it will relieve me from calumnious surmises and an unjust load of obloquy: it may be made, too, without any additional risk to the legal power, which is now not only endangered, but positively destroyed by what occurred on the former occasion, and especially by the speeches and the votes of those, who had served Her Majesty in high and confidential offices. I can now indulge my private feelings consistently with my public duty, and I can be a party, ay, and I will be a party to the most searching inquiry into the state of the law and the practice from the earliest period down to the latest moment. As far as I am concerned, nothing whatever shall be concealed. I am prepared to go before a Committee, and to give evidence stating fully every thing that I have done in concurrence with my Colleagues, and every thing that has been done by my predecessors; and in order that there may be the most complete and entire revelation, I will propose terms so general as to ensure a thorough investigation. The power given by law is not confined to England and to the Secretary of State, for it belongs also to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; and I hope that the inquiry will be extended to the exercise of the power by him. All I wish is, that the inquiry may be as full and complete; and the result will be, as far as I am concerned, that the power has been exercised in the strictest conformity with the established usage of my office. That usage has not only been recognised by the State, but by various Reports of Committees of this House the practice has been brought under the special and immediate notice of Parliament and of the public. It has been recognised by the State more than once, even at a recent period, on the consolidation of the statutes relating to the Post Office. It will appear, also, that neither in the mode, nor in the extent of the use of the power, can my conduct suffer by a comparison with that of my predecessors, and I am rejoiced to think that there is now, at least, an end of all mystification; and the course I am about to recommend will be not less satisfactory to myself than to the Friends who sit around me. It is my intention to propose an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. I stated on a former occasion, that I did not think a revelation in this House of all the details connected with the exercise of this power would be conducive to the public good, and I retain that opinion. I do think that there must be an inquiry, not before a Select Committee, but before a Secret Committee, the Members to be nominated by the House. I think it expedient, following the course of precedents, that a Secret Committee shall be appointed, for the purpose of conducting the inquiry to the full extent I have stated. It is of the last importance that the powers to be given to that Committee should be ample; but if a full revelation is to be made, the evidence given must not be disclosed. Much will depend upon the composition of that Committee; but above all, I am anxious that no delay should take place. Considering the importance of the subject, and the state of the public mind, the inquiry ought to be commenced without the loss of a day. I know not whether the strict rules of the House will permit it, but I mean to move the following words as an Amendment:—

"That a Committee of Secrecy be appointed to inquire into the state of the Law in respect to the detaining, and opening of Letters, at the General Post Office, and into the mode in which the authority given for such detaining and opening has been exercised."

There were some words at the end of the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury to which I should not be disposed to object; but I apprehend that the terms I have used will fully accomplish his views, and I shall add the usual power respecting sending for persons, papers, and records, and for reporting their opinions and observations to the House. I admit that the point of the greatest importance is the composition of the Secret Committee. I can conceive no higher trust delegated by the House to any of its Members; and for myself and my Colleagues, I may add, that we are anxious that the Committee should be impartially selected: in proof of that wish I may say that I am not disposed on this occasion to weigh the politics of any hon. Gentleman in the balance. I shall propose a Committee of nine, and five out of these nine should consist of Members generally opposed to the measures of Government. I will read the names, and first the four Members who usually vote with the present Administration. They are—Lord Sandon, Mr. Home Drummond, Mr. Thomas Baring, and Sir William Heathcote. The other five Members who are generally opposed to Ministers are these—Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, The O'Conor Don, and Mr. Ord, Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Permit me for one moment. I have carefully excluded from the list every Gentleman on either side of the House who is or who has been connected with office. Having excluded them, I may add, without any personal disrespect, that I look upon the hon. Member for Finsbury in a particular manner as the accuser on this occasion, and I think that both the accuser and the accused had better be excluded. To this Committee I gladly submit my personal honour and my official conduct, and I make the submission without fear. Though very dear to me, my honour is comparatively of small consequence in a question of this sort: I intrust it to them: I place it in their power, and I await their judgment, reserving always an appeal to this House. They will have to report upon the usage of the office, and upon the state of the law which has existed from the earliest times, and which has been sanctioned by the authority and practice of men long since gone to their great account—great constitutional authorities, men of spotless honour in private life, who dearly loved the liberties of their country. I have no doubt that the Members of the Committee will faithfully discharge their duties, and although there has been some evil in the late discussions, and in the agitation of the public mind on this subject, yet I hope, believe, and pray, that good may be the ultimate result. With this feeling, and with this confident expectation, I beg leave to propose my Amendment.

had only one remark to make, and that was, to point out the extraordinary circumstance of a Secret Committee being appointed to determine the construction of an Act of Parliament, and yet not one single member of the legal profession was nominated to serve on it. There was also, if he apprehended the right hon. Gentleman rightly, to be instituted a searching inquiry into the practices of the secret department of the Post-office; the officers and subordinates of that department were to be called before the Committee and to be examined; and yet there was no person to be found in the list of the Committee read by the right hon. Baronet who was competent to examine such functionaries, or to draw from them the details which it was the special business of that Committee to report upon. If it were wished that this inquiry should be as full as it had been admitted it ought to be, such precautions as he had pointed out ought surely to be taken to secure that result. He had observed the wish expressed by the right hon. Baronet to have the conduct of his predecessors in office subjected to the same scrutiny as his own. They were, he admitted, as much implicated in the inquiry as the present Ministry. The right hon. Baronet had said they were as criminal as himself and Colleagues, was it not, he would ask, fair for each party that members should be appointed on the Committee competent to sift and to arrive at the truth? It might be that his professional predilections had some effect upon his opinion in this matter, he could not divest his mind of the belief that an Act of Parliament should not be made the subject of inquiry before a Committee of that House unless some of the Members of that Committee were qualified, as lawyers, to investigate the subject.

said, that as the right hon. Baronet had thought proper to allude to the vote which he had given on the former discussion of the question before the House, he wished to disclaim in the strongest manner possible any participation in the attempts—attempts which the right hon. Baronet had imputed to those who voted as he had done—to run him down, or to excite the public indignation against him as Secretary of State, for the Home Department. In answer to this charge he should only refer to the arguments which he had used upon the occasion referred to. He had stated to the noble Lord opposite, who had accused the Members of the late Government of a wish to bring the details of the Post Office before the House, and of acting unfairly in that respect, that the grounds upon which he should vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury were not as to each particular case in which the right hon. Gentleman had exercised the power confided to him, but on the broad principle upon which that power was exercised. He had distinctly stated his objection to be that the power having been conferred for one purpose had been converted to another. He had observed that whilst the power of opening letters was conferred for the sole and express purpose of guarding the Throne and the Constitution from apprehended and secret dangers, the charge brought by the hon. Member for Finsbury against the right hon. Baronet was, that he had exceeded the power given him by law, in opening the letters of individuals at the instigation of foreign Governments, utterly unconnected in this respect with either the Queen or the Constitution of Great Britain. That was the single ground upon which he had voted, and the right hon. Baronet would no doubt bear him out in the assertion that such was his declaration at the time, for he had added at the close of his observations, that if the right hon. Baronet disavowed his having acted in the manner imputed to him, he would cheerfully vote with him. Now, he begged to say that he entirely approved of the course which the right hon. Baronet had adopted with respect to the Motion before the House. He did not mean to say that he was ready to adopt the specific terms in which that Amendment was couched; that was an immaterial consideration, because, as he understood the right hon. Baronet, the inquiry was to be a full, fair, and impartial one. He therefore gave the proposition of the Government a ready assent, nor did he think, under the circumstances, that the appointment of a Secret Committee was a wrong step. He did not know what the feeling of the hon. Member for Finsbury upon this point was, but as the terms in which the Amendment was proposed expressly said the inquiry was to be a full and a fair one, he supposed there would be no objection to the course suggested. With respect to the members of the Secret Committee, he should avoid expressing any opinion upon that subject, as the moment had not arrived at which they could, consistently with the rules of the House, be read from the Chair. If the House approved of and assented to the Amendment the names proposed to constitute the Committee would, according to the usual form, be placed upon the Motion Paper, and thus be subjected to the consideration of the House. The House would meet, he understood, at twelve o'clock on the following day, and surely the right hon. Baronet did not mean to say or to imply that any discussion upon the construction of the Secret Committee would then take place, and it was scarcely worth while to violate one of the most important rules of the House in order to gain twelve hours. Besides, if the House met at twelve o'clock, the Committee might be constituted, and commence its sittings by two o'clock, and the gain of two hours was not worth the sacrifice at which it would be attained. As far as he could judge from the hasty consideration which he had given the subject, the construction of the Committee appeared to him to be perfectly fair. His only objection was the absence of any hon. Member of the legal profession. [A Voice: "There is one."] He begged pardon, there, was one hon. Member a lawyer, and it was extremely desirable that this advantage should not be confined to the portion of the Committee selected from the other side of the House; in fact, this circumstance afforded a proof of the inexpediency of naming a Committee before the names of those Members who were to constitute it had been sufficiently considered by the House. He rejoiced to find that the right hon. Baronet, after the reserve in which he had wrapped himself, as to the mode of exercising the power reposed in him, had adopted another tone; and he agreed entirely in the fairness of the proposition which he had made. He agreed that the inquiry ought not to be restricted to the period since the right hon. Baronet had tenure of his office, and he was sure that not one of the right hon. Baronet's predecessors in the post which he then held would shrink from the fullest and most searching inquiry into the manner in which they had exercised the powers vested in them. After the assertions made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, such investigation was, he felt, necessary. He had already stated his reasons for deferring the nomination of the Committee; he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not, by persevering in pressing that point, drive the House into a discussion as to the names of the Members who were to compose it, but that he would let the matter take its regular course and suffer the Committee to be nominated at the sitting of the following day, by which time ample opportunity would have been given for considering the subject.

There is one point of great importance to which I wish to call the attention of the House. The object of appointing a Committee is to produce a feeling of security in the public mind, which feeling has been much shaken by what has recently occurred; I believe that the right hon. Baronet desires a thorough scrutiny into the whole matter of which we are talking, in order to create security out of doors. First, we have to ascertain what is the state of the law; and great doubts exist in the minds of the most learned lawyers; the next inquiry will be, how that law has been administered? By whom has it been departed from, by whom acted upon: thirdly, we have to consider what the law ought to be. Security being the end in view, I ask the House whether that end is likely to be attained by means of a Secret Committee? I know the difficulty, and I admit at once that the inquiry ought to be carried on with closed doors; but what I wish to secure is the complete and perfect publication of the evidence. The law in this case is doubtful, and after what has passed elsewhere, with most learned Lords on one side and with learned Lords on the other, you are about to appoint a Committeee—a Committee of very capable and perspicacious persons certainly—but not especially acquainted with the law. Let me first call your attention to the written law. By an Act of Parliament, 9th Anne, certain powers were given to the Post Office, and I direct my observations particularly to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Into that statute a proviso was introduced, by which persons opening letters by warrant from the Secretary of State were freed from the penalties of the Law. Since then, the 9th Anne has been repealed, and an Act was passed, I think in 1837, by which certain powers were given, and into which a proviso was introduced. I am stating the contents of the Statute, as far as I can understand them, and I have learned authority for what I am about to state, viz.: that the proviso protecting persons who opened letters gives no power to the Secretary of State to issue warrants. If he have any power of the kind it is at Common Law. I will take the liberty of reading the Statute, for it is short. [Here the hon. and learned Member read the terms of the Post Office Consolidation Act, and then proceeded.] As to the Common Law right, I have to direct the attention of hon. Members to the authority of no less a person than Lord Camden, then Chief-Justice Pratt, in reference to the seizure of Wilkes's papers. He begins by saying:—

"Papers are the owner's goods and chattels. They are his dearest property, and are so far from enduring seizure, that they will hardly bear inspection."

And from thence he goes on to assert distinctly that the law gave magistrates no power to seize on individual's papers:—

"Therefore (added Lord Camden) it is not too much for us to pronounce a practice illegal, which would be subversive of all the comforts of society."

This is precisely the same case. I maintain that it is a legal question, and I want to know who are to inquire into it? I can read the law here as well as my hon. and learned Friend opposite—I mean the words of it, but I want persons to be appointed who will attract confidence to the report on the question what the law really is. The next question for them will be whether it has been adhered to, and the third what it ought to be? The hon. Members to be appointed would be a competent jury on the second point, if they were duly instructed what the law is. A judge, on a trial, tells the jury what the law is; but here we are in doubt what the law is, and the condition on which it exists. Out of doors there are various opinions among learned persons, and I do not think that this Committee is likely to deserve the confidence of the House or of the country, especially when it is to be a Committee of Secrecy. I beg to assure the right hon. Baronet that I fully sympathise in the feelings he has expressed. I fully believe that advantage has been taken of this incident to call down public indignation upon an officer who has done nothing more than tread in the footsteps of his predecessors, and that this opinion has been aided and created out of doors by all the vile arts which attach to the daily papers of this country; a fouler instrument of calumny cannot be found, and all its foulness on the present occasion has been poured on the head of the right hon. Baronet. I will not do honour to one more than another of these detestable channels of public information, by naming any one of them. I beg to add, that I am delighted that an enquiry is to take place, and I am convinced that when the public and the country come to understand what the power is, and how it has been exercised under all administrations, when you lay bare all its hideous deformity, it will be consigned at once to destruction. It is a power not necessary for the safety of the country, not necessary for the peace of the world, and only used to gratify base passions and for party, disingenuous, and detestable purposes. It can be of no use to an Administration which rests on the affections of the people, only bent upon a just and straightforward course, far above all inquiries into the privacy of individuals, and aiming at the government of a nation perfectly free in the performance of all those acts which society considers harmless and useful. I hold in my hand a paper which is well worthy of attention. The hon. Member for Finsbury told us that M. Guizot in his place had thought fit to say, that he did not believe that any breach of the privacy of letters had been committed. I hope that the statement is accurate, although I have not myself perfect faith in it: as far as I am concerned, I do not attach much credit to that piece of information, for I believe that the practice prevails now as formerly, and, I hold in my hand a very remarkable letter relating to the proceedings of the French Post Office from Carnot, who was minister of the interior during the Hundred Days: it may be taken as a warning to us at present, and, with the permission of the House, I will read it in English. [The hon. and learned Member read the letter, which was addressed to a prefect of one of the departments, and protested against the violation of the privacy of correspondence as directly contrary to the wishes of the Emperor. It referred to the practice which had prevailed on this subject in 1787, insisted upon the propriety of abandoning it, and called upon the prefect "to pursue, with the utmost strictness, those who, by opening letters, violated the law and the most sacred rights of man."] I beg especially to direct the notice of the House to the last words of the letter of Carnot, in 1815, "That the thoughts of a fellow-citizen ought to be as free as his person." I sincerely believe that as an instructed people, long conversant with the blessings of established and regular government, we are not yet reduced to the fatal necessity of employing such degrading and disgraceful means of protecting the public interests.

I am anxious to take this opportunity of making some explanation upon a point with reference to what took place in this House, but still more, in another place. As it is a matter of a personal character, I hope that the House will indulge me for a few moments. It has been asserted that in 1837, in consolidating the Acts relating to the Post Office, the Government with which I was connected not only gave fresh sanction to the power now under discussion, but actually pushed that power to a further extreme. I beg to say, that if such were the case, it was my own individual deed, for which I alone was responsible. Let me remind the House that, in 1837, I was a member of the Post Office Commission, and it was signified to me that it would be a great public convenience if the 187 Acts relating to that department were consolidated. This was repeatedly urged upon me, among others, by the hon. Member for Greenock; and I undertook the task upon one condition, viz., that the Bill was to be treated as one of mere consolidation, and time was not to be consumed by debates upon the merits of the different enactments. The hon. Member for Greenock kept his undertaking with the most honourable fidelity, and allowed the measure to pass as one of consolidation. I stated at the time that no Member was pledged by any of the provisions—nay, more, that I was not myself pledged by any of them. Therefore it has not been truly and fairly stated that fresh action was given by me to this power by what was a mere consolidation. The hon. Member proceeded to state, that having himself been employed in conjunction with professional gentlemen of high eminence, in effecting a consolidation of the Acts relating to the Post Office, he was enabled to state that no alteration had been made in the new Act with respect to this power of opening letters. These were the facts of the case. Those intrusted with this duty had found one set of words in the Irish Act which gave this power to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Chief Justice in his absence, in Ireland. There was another set of words in the English Act, giving this power to the Secretary of State in England, and the words of the Irish Act were adopted, instead of those of the English Act. No new words were inserted: they merely adopted the Irish words, and applied them in England when it became necessary to consolidate the laws on this subject. His belief was, that they had in no degree altered the law or rendered it more stringent as against the subject, and that they had given no increased power to the Secretary of State by this consolidation. He believed he was not misstating the case, but if it should be found that he was, he hoped he should be acquitted by the House of having misstated it intentionally. If the case were otherwise, he (Mr. Labouchere) was responsible; the error, if error there were, was his alone; and neither the Government with which he was connected, nor the Law Officers of the Crown who had taken upon themselves the duty of drawing up the Act, could be held responsible. He had discharged, to the best of his ability, the duty which he was bound to perform, and he should be extremely sorry to have it supposed that he had availed himself of that opportunity to insert words giving to the Government a new power which it had not possessed before. He heartily rejoiced at the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman, alluding particularly to the speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, seemed to suppose that those who had been the servants of Her Majesty in the Privy Council must have had knowledge of the circumstances attending an exercise of this power. Now, he had had the honour of serving Her Majesty in the Privy Council, and yet he knew no more about it than any other Member of that House. He knew nothing of the circumstances under which the noble Lord (the Member for the City of London) had exercised this power, while he had that entire confidence in the honour and integrity of the noble Lord, that he was satisfied the noble Lord would not shrink from instituting this inquiry any more than any of his late Colleagues. He was therefore speaking now as any other Member of the House might have spoken. He confessed that he had entertained the opinion which he expressed when this subject was first discussed, that it was fitting that on grave and serious occasions the Government of this country should have the power of opening letters; yet, the more this discussion went on, the more obstinately the Government have declined to make any statement of the circumstances under which the late exercise of the power had taken place, and the more that the fact had been made public by the press, the more he had felt that it was absolutely necessary for the honour of the country that the subject should be examined into. He had been a good deal shocked to find it stated that Mr. Fox had, in 1782, in so general a way, opened all the dispatches of the Foreign Ministers in this country. He could not believe that there was any real public object gained by exercising a power of this description, anything which could be put in competition with the honour of this country, or with the obligation of preserving the sanctity of the seal. If it were known that the power was exercised, of course the Foreign Ministers would take good care not to send any of their dispatches through the Government Post Office. He could not, therefore, believe that there could be any State necessity for exercising this power in this general and sweeping way. On the other hand, he could conceive cases in which it might be the duty of the Government to exercise a power of this kind. If, for instance, there was reason to suppose that the life of the Sovereign was in danger from some plot, and the only way of detecting it was by opening a letter, would any one contend that it was not the duty of Government to exercise the power? But he rejoiced that the whole question was to be submitted to an impartial tribunal, and he was satisfied that nothing but good would result. The hon. Member for Bath appeared to him, while generally coinciding with the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to raise one objection, which, he confessed, he did not think very well founded. The distinction between a Secret Committee, and one with closed doors, did not appear to him (Mr. Labouchere) to be of much importance. It seemed to be generally felt by the House that this should not be an open Committee, constituted in the same way as Committees of that House were in ordinary cases. There was no reason to run away with a prejudice against a Secret Committee as being very different in its nature from one with closed doors. He apprehended that the only distinction was this, that a Secret Committee would have the power of excluding, besides strangers generally, those who were Members of that House, while a Committee, with closed doors, had not the power of excluding Members. The Members of the House formed a very numerous body, and it was possible that those who would be most anxious to obtain admittance to the sittings of the Committee might be the very persons whom, if secresy were the object, it would be most desirable to exclude. He did not see why Members should claim for themselves a privilege which they refused to the public generally. He, therefore, quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman on this point. He concurred in the remarks made by by his hon. Friend near him, relative to the employment of lawyers on the Committee; but it seemed to be forgotten that one of the proposed Members, Mr. Home Drummond, was a very able and experienced lawyer. He had filled the office of Deputy Advocate in Scotland, and was as well trained and thorough a lawyer as any in that House. If they adhered to the rule of employing lawyers, it would be proper to retain his name on the Committee; if not, his being there was of course inconsistent. He could not conclude without expressing his persuasion, that if Government had frankly stated on the previous occasion, their views as to the exercise of this power, which the people out of doors naturally looked upon with great jealousy, public resentment would never have reached such a height, and that the only course to be taken for the purpose of allaying it was to allow a complete and searching inquiry to be instituted into the circumstances of the case.

said, Sir, I must observe, in the first place, that I cordially and personally share in the satisfaction expressed by my right hon. Friend, that there will be an opportunity to give the fullest information on the subject of the most invidious power of detaining and opening letters. I say, I heartily rejoice in it, because the acts done are not the acts of an individual Member of the Government, for them I consider the whole Administration responsible; and that it is not just and not fair, that he upon whom the law imposes this painful duty should bear the whole responsibility of it. These acts are done with the general cognizance and authority of the Government, and individual Members of the Government ought not to be made responsible for them. Sir, the great object for which the appointment of this Committee will take place, is, that there may be full and complete information as to the length of time the usage has prevailed, and the circumstances under which this authority has been exercised, and that there should proceed from that Committee, an opinion whether or no in the case of any particular Administration this power has been perverted from the purposes for which it was granted—whether it has been used for the promotion of private interests, whether it has been used for the gratification of private curiosity, or the indulgence of private malignity, or whether the great purposes for which the power was given, namely, the maintenance of the interests of the country, has been all that has been regarded by those who have exercised it. That was the great object we had in the appointment of this Committee. We left out all lawyers purposely, after consideration. We thought it right to state the origin of the law, and in what manner the law had varied from time to time; but we thought that we should be justly charged with diverting from public attention the real object of this Committee, if we had put upon it any lawyers to squabble about this or that construction of the law. Let us discuss that at another time. If we had put any lawyers upon it, whom should we have named? Without reflection upon anybody, the men best qualified in the opinion of all, would, probably, be those who had filled the highest offices under the late Government as well as under the present Government. I presume that that would have been the general opinion, without any reflection upon any other lawyer. Upon any legal Committee the names which would carry most weight, would, in all probability, be the names of the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter, not from any personal preference to them, but because the one was Attorney General under the late Government, and the other is Attorney General under the present Government and then suppose they differed upon any legal point? I cannot then but think, that if we had appointed a Committee to hear those two learned Gentlemen squabbling about the legal effect of any particular Clause, we should have been justly charged with diverting its attention from that which is the main object—a full inquiry into the principles upon which we have acted, and the objects we have had in view. And if great and learned lawyers differ in the House of Lords, as I understand they do, upon any particular point. I am very much afraid that the Report of any Committee of nine Gentlemen assisted by two lawyers, would not be very satisfactory as to the operation of the law. But that is not the point on which the English people wish to be satisfied. If we had appointed those two Gentlemen we should have departed from the principle to which we wish to adhere—to exclude men in office, or candidates for office, and to appoint upon this Committee only men of experience and of high public character; and I think the men we have named are enlightened enough to come to a judgment upon the real facts of this case without the aid of the hon. and learned Member for Worcester, or the hon. and learned Member for Exeter. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath will not call for the appointment of lawyers upon the Committee. At the same time, it will be consistent with the principles upon which we wish to act—that we should gain no advantage from any particular names on this Committee—if we were at once to forego any advantage which we might be supposed to have by having named a Gentleman whose qualifications as a lawyer we had forgotten in our respect for him as a country gentleman. It never occurred to me until I heard it mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the hon. Member for Perth, a great agricultural district, was so acute a lawyer as I have no doubt he is, if he applied his abilities to the profession of the law. We certainly wished to name him, but if there would be any advantage to the Government from his being a professional man, that advantage we will forego and will consent to name some hon. Gentleman who has not the qualifications of a lawyer. An objection has been taken to this being a Secret Committee. Why, Sir, we made it a Secret Committee in order that there might be a fuller opportunity of disclosure on the part of those who fill certain offices under Government. The question will be "Have you abused your powers?" And we do intend that the officers of the Post Office shall appear before the Committee. We wish to conceal nothing. But in order to do that, we must hope that the obligation of secrecy will be put upon those Gentlemen who are to make a final report because we cannot render an account of our motives unless we explain facts which ought not to be disclosed to the world; but that Committee having heard the facts will have the fullest opportunity of reporting whether that explanation be satisfactory or not, without disclosing the names of parties to whom reference is made. But if we have asked for a Secret Committee, we have acted in conformity with the course pursued by one of our noble opponents, because in another place, knowing that the way to get at the truth was to maintain secrecy, the Earl of Radnor, in moving for a Committee to inquire into these practices, proposed that it should be a Secret Committee. And I with confidence state to the House that if they want to get at the real facts as to the conduct of the Government, they will require that the Committee should be a Secret Committee, and not a select one. I hope, therefore, that the House will be satisfied with our motives for making this a Secret Committee. The object is for the Committee to inquire into certain facts, and to report to the House after that inquiry to what extent it may be desirable for the public interests that this power should be retained, and, if retained, under what qualifications and restrictions; but I say, that in order to enable the Committee to give an opinion for the future upon that important point, it will be of great advantage to them to have the whole truth before them in the way in which they can best obtain it, under the sacred obligation ef secrecy, I hope, therefore, the House will consent to my substituting another name for that of the hon. Member for Perth. I feel that we have observed perfect fairness in the appointment of this Committee; and I hope that without engendering any difficulty about the name the House will consent to what I now propose. We have named five out of nine Gentlemen forming the Committee, including the hon. Member for Kendal and the hon. Member for Roscommon, from Gentlemen on the other side of the House and no one can read their names without feeling satisfied of their qualifications for discharging the duties intrusted to them. Not only are those Gentlemen opposed to us in general politics, but they gave adverse votes to us when this question was last before the House in the case of Captain Stolzberg. Every one of the five whom we have selected to be our judges upon this question voted against us. I hope, then, you will substitute some other name of equal authority with that of the hon. Member for Perth; but that you will reserve all legal questions for future consideration, and exempt the Committee from entering into any legal technicalities and distinctions; and seeing that five out of the nine, being chosen from the other side, may be presumed to be against the Government, that you will be satisfied of the purity of our motives, and not involve us to-morrow in that most invidious of conflicts—the nomination of a Committee. A Secret Committee differs from a Select Committee in respect to the general rules of the House, and we are not acting in violation of those rules by at once proceeding to its nomination, and we do confidently hope that the proposal of the Government, as to the general constitution of the Committee, the majority being selected from our opponents, and the weight and authority of those individuals on that side of the House being considered, will carry with it the universal and unanimous approbation of the House, and that we shall not be asked for any unnecessary delay.

then said,—Sir, after the course which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, supported by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, were it not for some allusions which the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of his speech, as laying the grounds for the appointment of this Committee, I should have given a silent vote upon this Motion. But the right hon. Gentleman having referred to a speech which I made in a former debate in this House, and especially to the vote which I gave, as a reason for the appointment of this Committee, it becomes necessary for me to remind the House of the observations I made upon that occasion. I came down to the House fully persuaded that I should be enabled to support the right hon. Gentleman. I did not expect I should have had to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend near me; because I expected that when the right hon. Gentleman asked me to agree to his Motion, he would have stated the general principles upon which he acted in the exercise of this particular power. That was the course taken by Sir R. Walpole—no mean authority—when the exercise of this power was questioned in former tunes; and it appeared to me that if the right hon. Gentleman shrouded himself in complete silence as to the general principles upon which he acted, he left it entirely open to any future Secretary of State to abuse that power, as the right hon. Gentleman had just stated, for the purpose of private interest, for the gratification of private curiosity, or the indulgence of private malignity; because the House of Commons having affirmed that the Secretary of State was not bound to state any general principles or general rules which should guide his course, there seemed to be no check whatever for the exercise of this, which I consider a necessary, but at the same time, very formidable power. When I stated that, however, I differed both from my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh and also from the suggestion of my noble Friend the Member for Sunderland. But there was one observation which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury when he brought forward the Motion to which I railed the attention of the House. It was, that the letters of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolzberg had been opened not for anything that was apprehended, either from domestic or foreign enemies, but to aid certain foreign Governments against discontented subjects of theirs who had taken refuge in this country, and that that was not a legitimate exercise of that power. At the same time, if the right hon. Gentleman had declared to the House what were the general principles upon which he acted, I stated that I was ready to give him credit in any particular case in which he had exercised any particular power; and I would not have asked him anything further, but should have been contented to have supported him in refusing the Committee. I think the right hon. Gentleman acted wrongly in that respect. I do not regret the course I took on that occasion, because if the suspicions of the public mind had not been awakened, if the same inflammatory statements had not been made, if the interest of the people in this question had not been so strongly excited, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, we should have had no inquiry. The right hon. Baronet, however, now thinks it necessary to appoint a Committee, and in this respect one advantageous result has followed the course we then pursued. I came down to-night intending to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, thinking it quite fair, that as the conduct of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had been attacked, the conduct of his predecessors should also be made the subject of inquiry by this House. I entirely agree in the reasons urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite for proposing that the Committee appointed to investigate this matter should be a Secret Committee. I think the purposes of the inquiry will be more fully attained, the investigation will be more strict, and the Members of the Committee will be better able to arrive at a conclusion if the inquiry is conducted secretly than would be the case if it were an open Committee, and the matter was canvassed from day to day. I am ready to agree to any selection of names the right hon. Baronet may think proper to propose. I see no objection to the names he has mentioned; and I think it is advisable that we should now close this part of the subject. I shall be quite ready to afford the Committee any information as to the exercise of this power during the period I held the office of Secretary of State; and there are others, of course, who can give evidence quite as good—perhaps better—as to the manner in which I then exercised that power. Let the subject be investigated; if the present law is necessary, let it be maintained; if the terms of that law are not sufficiently plain, let them be made more clear; but, if it should appear that this power is not necessary for the public interests, let it be abolished. I shall be quite content with the decision of a Committee constituted in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and I believe, that in the hands of such a Committee, the public interests will not suffer.

said, I am convinced that the public will not be satisfied with the reasons assigned, either by the Members of Her Majesty's Government, or by the noble Lord and his right hon. Friends, for referring this subject to a Secret Committee. It is certainly a most extraordinary mode of satisfying public curiosity. Do the Members of the Government suppose that they are to have exclusively all the curiosity in the world? They have been in the habit of looking into people's letters; and the public want to know why and how and to what extent this practice has been pursued. The public have expressed much surprise and great indignation at the conduct of the Government in this respect. In the first instance, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was taciturn; he very boldly said, "I won't tell you what I have done. I feel it most consistent with my duty to be silent. You shan't know anything about the matter." But the public have evinced great anxiety on the subject; and the press, as I think—contrary to the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend—with very laudable zeal, and with a very excellent spirit, has taken up the question, and has excited the feeling which now exists in England, and has so far succeeded in bringing the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) to an account, that he now expresses his willingness to consent to some inquiry. It is to the press that we are indebted for this result. The public say, "Let us have an investigation—let us know what has been done." The right hon. Baronet states, as one reason for consenting to inquiry, that he does so in deference to public opinion; he says that public feeling is so much excited on the subject, that he considers it his duty to consent to an investigation. But how are the public to be satisfied? By being told that the investigation is to be confided to nine hon. Members of this House, who are to make no revelation whatever of the manner in which this odious practice has been exercised, or of the extent to which it has been carried. [An hon. Member: "They are."] Yes, but only a general declaration of opinion. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether it be competent to this Committee to present the evidence adduced before them to this House, or for this House to order that it shall be printed? No; the evidence is to be excluded from public observation. But I contend that the public are as competent to form an opinion as to the manner in which this power has been exercised as the nine Gentlemen who are to constitute the Committee. But what is the other reason which, according to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, induces him to consent to the appointment of a Committee? The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the observations he addressed to the House, alluded especially, and with much clearness and ability, to the part which was taken, the other night by the Members of the late Government in the debate upon this subject. I infer, from what has transpired, that what the right hon. Baronet means to do is this—to admit that his own conduct has been rather dark and queer with respect to this transaction, but to endeavour to get out of his difficulty by saying to the Members of the late Administration, "Thank God! I am not worse than you are. I will prove before this Committee, that if my conduct has been objectionable, that of my predecessors in office was at least quite as bad." How very satisfactory to the public! It is said that when persons of a certain description fall out, honest men get their own. Now, it is clear to me that but for the hostility manifested to the present Government by the Members of the late Administration, we should have had no inquiry at all. I am glad there has been a fall out between the hon. Gentlemen on opposite sides of this House, but I doubt very much whether the public will get their own. I believe that, if we don't take care, the practice we have so strongly condemned will in future be carried on under the authority of this Secret Committee. I fear, from the manner in which the inquiry is likely to be conducted, it will be admitted that the power in question ought to exist; if so, who can place limits to its exercise? There may be a condemnation of the practice of the late and of the present Governments, and the Committee may Report that they hope, after what has transpired, that the power will be exercised with extreme deliberation and caution; but the practice may continue for twenty, thirty, or forty years, till another explosion similar to the present takes place, in consequence of its being carried to too great an extent, or exercised in an improper manner. I have heard no reasons which, in my opinion, show the necessity for conducting this investigation in secret. According to the terms of the Motion the inquiries of the Committee will first be directed to ascertaining the state of the law; at least, that is the first subject mentioned in the Resolution. The state of the law! What has transpired in another place with regard to the state of the law? We have in that place the first legal authorities of this kingdom—men to whose judgment in legal matters the public of this country are ready to submit,—we have the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and some half-dozen Ex-Chancellors—men sitting on both sides of the House, and maintaining opinions diametrically opposite. The Lord Chancellor declares that one warrant is sufficient to justify the opening of a number of letters, and in that opinion he is supported by an Ex-Chancellor; but on the other hand we have high legal authorities, led by the Lord Chief Justice, declaring that an express warrant is necessary in every case. But, notwithstanding this difference of opinion among the highest legal authorities, my learned Friend near me is desirous that lawyers should be placed on this Committee, Why, if the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice differ in opinion as to the state of the law, are we likely to find lawyers in this House who can determine it, and to whose decision the public will bow? In my opinion the better course is to exclude lawyers from this Committee, because my conviction is, that if they were to discuss the matter for a month they would not come to a satisfactory decision at last. I would call upon the hon. Gentlemen who are to form this Committee to apply the principles of common sense and of common justice to the practice of opening letters and to the state of the law on the subject; and it is then possible that this House and the public may be satisfied with their decision. I am convinced, however, that nothing will satisfy the public that this odious and detestable power ought to be continued. A more odious power never existed—nor one which has been exercised in a manner more calculated to give annoyance and to excite dissatisfaction. It is curious, that though my hon. Colleague made several somewhat bold declarations and charges against the Government, not one of them was contradicted by the right hon. Baronet opposite. All the right hon. Gentleman says is,—"If I have acted in this way, my predecessors have acted in the same way." The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that there was a secret office, and that whole bags of letters were sent to that office. I do not say that those letters were opened there, nor did my hon. Colleague make such an allegation; but, from representations made by hon. Members of this House, it is believed that the practice of opening letters has been carried to an enormous extent, and that letters have been opened again and again at the instigation of the agents of Foreign Governments. Under these circumstances I would ask whether it is not the duty of this House to appoint an open Committee—to meet the question boldly. I am convinced that the public will not be disposed to visit the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary with a more severe punishment for his conduct in relation to this matter than they will award to other parties; however bad the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman may have been in opening letters, if it is shown that the conduct of his predecessors has been equally objectionable. In the clamour raised against them he will escape, and he will have reason to be glad that he has courted full and open inquiry.

was prepared, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury had gone to a division, to have given his vote in its favour, and against the Government. He would not have pursued this course from any want of confidence, either in the Government in general, or in the right hon. Baronet in particular; but he felt it his duty to vote in accordance with the view he had formed of the merits of this question, and with a sense of his responsibility as a Member of that House. On some occasions during the present Session hon. Members of that House, on a reconsideration of questions which had been brought before it, had come to conclusions precisely opposite to those at which they had in the first instance arrived; and it seemed that in the present case Her Majesty's Government had benefited by the opportunity afforded them of reconsidering this subject, and had adopted a determination the reverse of that they had before announced.

fully concurred in the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley). It appeared to him that the proposal of the right hon. Baronet indicated that such an arrangement had been come to by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House as would prevent the public from knowing much of this investigation. He was convinced that the public would not be satisfied with an inquiry conducted before a Secret Committee; in a matter of this sort, they would demand publicity. The great body of the people of this country now believed that a system prevailed at the Post Office of opening letters, independently of the letters of foreigners and those for which warrants were granted, and they had lost all confidence in the Post Office establishment. He had in his pocket several letters, received within the last four or five days, which had printed notices upon them, stating that it was unnecessary to seal them because it was not worth while putting the Post Office to the trouble of opening them. He was desirous to see the Post Office establishment deserving and possessing the confidence of the people; but he was sure that inquiry by a Secret Committee on a subject of this nature would not increase their confidence in that establishment. His hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe), who brought forward this question seemed to him to be better able than any other person in this country to guide both sides of that House. That hon. Member seemed to have the power of directing the Government to do whatever he pleased. He hoped, if there should be any embarrassment attending the formation of a new Ministry, Her Majesty would not forget his hon. Friend, who, he was convinced, would point out the men best qualified to advise the Crown. He would support a public and open, in preference to a secret inquiry; and he hoped his hon. Friend would take the sense of the House on the subject.

said, I would not now presume to address the House, were it not that I understand, during my absence, some allusion has been made to me by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. It is extremely difficult for a person who has not been present during a debate in this House to collect precisely what has been said during his absence; and it is proportionally difficult for him to give an answer to any charges which have been made against him. But, if I rightly understand what I am told has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, the charges he has made against me may be classed under two heads. He has imputed to me, in the first place, a dereliction of my duty as a sworn servant of Her Majesty; and, secondly, he has accused me of making a personal attack upon him, and of imputing to him some misconduct unprecedented in the administration of his predecessors. Now, as to the first and more important of these attacks, I deny that I have in any respect, by any observation I have addressed to this House, violated my oath of duty as a Privy Councillor. I deny that I have divulged any secret which came into my possession in that capacity. I deny that in the character of a Privy Councillor I ever became acquainted with any circumstance whatever relating to the practice of the Post Office. I deny that any paper I knew to be obtained by the opening or scraping of seals was ever, to the best of my knowledge, submitted to me in that capacity. I declare, also, that there is no Gentleman, on either side of this House, who is more completely ignorant than I am of all the details of that Department of the Post Office to which frequent reference has been made during this discussion. Then, with respect to the second charge made against me by the right hon. Gentleman, I deny, with equal confidence, the imputation that I came down to this House to make a personal attack upon that right hon. Baronet. I certainly came down intending to express concisely, a very strong opinion as to the present state of the law and practice; and I intended to have prefaced my observations by declaring that I made no imputation whatever upon the right hon. Baronet beyond what must attach to him in common with all others who had been called upon to administer the same invidious law. If I departed from that line of conduct, it was because the right hon. Baronet himself forced me to such a course; because I considered that the line of conduct he adopted was utterly inconsistent with all notions of Ministerial responsibility. I now say, that in my opinion, there is a wide distinction between the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) and that of any persons who have preceded him in his present office; for who, when called upon in the face of this House to state on what principle he had exercised the power we are now discussing, ever declined to do so before the right hon. Baronet? When Sir Robert Walpole was called upon in this House to make such a statement, he frankly avowed the principle on which he had acted. The noble Lord near me has made a distinct statement of the principle on which, during his administration, that department was directed. He distinctly declared that, in the exercise of this power, he acted solely with a view to the safety of this country; and that he would have considered it a departure from the spirit of the law to examine the letters of foreigners, in consequence of applications from foreign Governments, founded upon apprehensions they might entertain. The right hon. Baronet opposite was repeatedly asked, "Will you state that this was the principle upon which you acted?" The right hon. Gentleman replied that he would not—that a sense of public duty, regard for the safety of the State, induced him to refuse to declare the principle upon which he had acted. Was that consistent with the conduct of the right hon. Baronet to-night? Why, is not this Secret Committee, consisting of nine Members of this House, to tell us upon what principle this practice was carried on? Is it not appointed in order that the House may ascertain on what general principle letters have been opened? There can be no doubt that the intention is, that this Secret Committee shall state to the House not particular cases, but the general principles upon which the Post Office and other authorities have acted To the appointment of that Committee the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) entertains no decided objection. Does he not conceive that the public safety is compromised by the appointment of such a Committee? Let me ask the right hon. Baronet why he did not state to the House what he conceives will be the substance of the Report of that Committee? Why, if the Report of that Committee will compromise the public safety, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to agree to its appointment. If the public safety will not be compromised by such Report, the right hon. Baronet ought not to have shielded himself under the pretence of "public safety," and have refused any answer to questions put to him on this subject. A mere declaration from him of the principles upon which he has acted would have prevented me from making any remarks as to his conduct; I should merely have addressed myself to what I think the most important part of the subject—the state of the law. I shall be much surprised if the Report of this Committee should lead me to entertain an opinion different from that I have hitherto expressed, namely, that the state of the law requires very great and extensive alteration. I will not detain the House further than to say that I heartily approve of the Motion of the right hon. Baronet opposite, and that I think, upon the whole, it is desirable that in the first instance, at least, the proceedings of the Committee should be secret. I conceive it to be possible that some matters connected with the administration of foreign affairs might be disclosed in the course of the examination, the publicity of which we might have reason to regret. I am not desirous that any secresy whatever should be preserved with respect to the internal arrangements of the Post Office; because, with regard to all matters purely internal, the people of this country are fully competent to judge what is for their own interest. Matters which it is not advisable to render public might, however, be disclosed in the course of an inquiry of this nature. I do not conceive that any Report this Committee may present is likely to induce me to change the opinion I now entertain—that the power possessed by the Secretary of State with regard to the opening of letters is one which produces no advantage at all commensurate with the evils and the feeling of insecurity which it occasions; and that it is a power which, whether we censure the past exercise of it or not, we ought without delay to abolish.

observed that in the course of his remarks he had alluded only to the exercise of this power of opening letters for political purposes. The Marquess of Normanby, he believed, had in another place mentioned that this power was sometimes exerted to further the ends of justice in cases of crime, when without its exercise justice would be defeated.

said, if the Government persisted in having a Secret Committee, it ought to be one in which the people would have confidence. There were no Gentlemen of higher character and honour than every one of the hon. Members who were to be appointed, but they were so peculiarly connected with the two great parties in the House, not merely as partizans, that he was convinced any report from them would produce no more impression upon the public mind than if five Gentlemen only from the Treasury Bench were to be appointed. So strong was his impression of the truth of this view that he should move that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) should be added to the Committee. It was but just that the hon. Member for Finsbury should have the opportunity of proving the allegations he had made. He thought, too, that the hon. Member for Montrose, who shared so largely the confidence of the people of the country should be added. The Government, if they honestly meant to satisfy the public mind, would best consult their own object by acceding to that proposal.

said, he regarded it as an act of humanity to ascertain whether the present or any late Government had been party to opening the letters of foreigners, and forwarding them to their Governments. That would be most cruel and utterly indefensible; and if it were only to save poor foreigners from being so shamefully entrapped, the public thanks were due to the hon. Member for Finsbury in bringing forward the question. Whatever might be the Report of the Committee, nothing could render it justifiable in a Government to open and privately reseal letters. He thought that a Government doing that would be party or privy to almost any crime whatever. Had it not been for the independent press of this country, they would not have stood in the position they now were of a Committee of Inquiry having been granted. He regretted that personal pain should have been caused to the right hon. Secretary of State, but he had now manfully met the question. Looking then upon the question as one of humanity, he (Mr. Curteis) offered his thanks to the hon. Member for Finsbury for having brought it forward.

, in reply, said that if he had been fortunate enough to possess the power which had been ascribed to him by an hon. Member, of directing Her Majesty's Government, he should certainly have used it this evening, in endeavouring to persuade them to go a little further than they had done; for he felt convinced the public would not be satisfied with the investigation proposed. He did not think it necessary that they should have a Secret Committee, nor did he believe the public would be satisfied with the Committee the right hon. Baronet proposed to nominate. There was an alteration he would suggest in the wording of the Motion, to which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not object. The words were that a Committee of secrecy be appointed to inquire into the state of the law in respect to detaining and opening letters at the General Post Office, and the mode in which the authority had been exercised. Now, according to those terms, he did not think that the cases he had brought under the consideration of the House would be inquired into. The case of Mr. Mazzini and others would be excluded. The words were "as to the mode in which" the authority was exercised; but he thought the words "circumstances and extent" ought to be added. That would open the question before the Committee, as to the grounds upon which the letters of Mr. Mazzini, and other foreigners had been opened. One of the principal charges against the Government was, that they had opened the letters of foreign exiles, at the instigation of Foreign Powers. [Sir R. Peel: Surely the word "mode" will cover all the hon. Member's desires.] He thought it desirable to add the words "circumstances and extent." What the public wanted to know was, under what circumstances, and to what extent to which the right hon. Baronet and his predecessors had carried this power. Let the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth be told. He was in hopes at one time, that the right hon. Baronet was coming near to tell the whole truth, and to say, "I did open Mr. Mazzini's letters, and I will tell you the reason why I did so;" but no, the right hon. Gentleman stopped short. He (Mr. Duncombe) was sure the right hon. Baronet did not wish to misrepresent what he had said; but the right hon. Gentleman asserted, that he (Mr. Duncombe) had alleged, he could prove that the Dublin and Brighton bags had been called for into the Inner Office, and everybody's letters had been opened. Now, what he had really said was, that there was this secret or inner office, where the deeds of darkness were carried on, and where not only letters of individuals were opened, examined, and secretly sealed, but where locked bags of letters were carried in, kept for an hour and a half, and then carried back to the sorters, who could not possibly know what had happened to them in the meantime. Perhaps he might have said, the Dublin bag, or the Brighton bag, as for intance; he had reason to believe these bags had been sent for to this office, but he could not prove it. What he had said was, that a roving Post Office commission had been sent into the manufacturing districts, and who might have opened everybody's letters. He hoped that the Committee would elicit the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and he hoped, too, that the Committee would have no scruple in informing the House and the public whether any letter of his had been opened. He did call upon the Committee to report specially, whether any letters for the Albany had been detained and opened. He had been informed that such had been the case. He could not understand why this was to be a Secret Committee The public would think that they were establishing a secret, or inner office within these walls. What satisfaction the public would derive from the appointment of that Committee remained to be proved. He threw the responsibility of the investigation entirely upon the Government. He trusted it would be satisfactory, and he only reserved to himself the right, if it should prove that the Committee did not do their duty satisfactorily, of re-opening the question.

, would again read the names of the hon. Gentlemen proposed to be nominated. The Government had selected a Gentleman who had been long in that House, a Gentleman of high character and spotless integrity, in forgetfulness of the fact, that some twenty years ago, he had been in practice at the Bar. As it was the pleasure of the House that he should be excluded, he would propose to substitute, for the name of Mr. Home Drummond, the name of Mr. Wilson Patten. The right hon. Baronet then read the names as follow: Lord Sandon, Mr. Wilson Patten, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. W. Heathcote, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, the O'Conor Don, and Mr. Ord.

said, it was most desirable every one should think a Committee had been appointed which would carry on a full and fair investigation; and he was extremely surprised, that the name of Mr. Duncombe had been omitted. The reason that had been assigned was, that the hon. Gentleman stood in the position of an accuser; but he did not see the validity of the objection. He would propose that the Under Secretary of State should be added, on the one side, and Mr. T. Duncombe on the other. If the Under Secretary was objected to, he saw no reason why Mr. T. Duncombe should not be added.

trusted if the House approved generally of the Committee that had been named, they would vote for it as it now stood. The Government had avoided placing upon the Committee any of those who had been accused; and let it not be said, as upon another occasion, that they looked for a judge and found an accuser. The hon. Gentleman had expressed a strong opinion in regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government; and he could not, therefore, but think it would be more just and satisfactory that his name should be omitted. In so omitting him, they cast no imputation upon that hon. Gentleman; but acted in precise conformity with the course taken by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the case of the charge preferred by the hon. Member for Bradford against the hon. and learned Member for Cork; and there was an opinion expressed on that side of the House, that the hon. Member should be excluded from that Committee, because he had exhibited indications of strong party opinions. The Government then had acted conformably to the precedent they had found established by those who were opposed to them. If then the House were satisfied generally with the Committee proposed, he trusted they would sanction the unusual course the Government had proposed of nominating a majority of five Gentlemen opposed to them, and not enter into a personal conflict respecting the names of individuals.

although this is to be a Committee for the consideration of a law, not a single lawyer has been put upon it: you wish the investigation to be most searching: I presume that you will have no objection to have the different functionaries of the Post Office examined as to various details; it follows that you should have some person on the Committee accustomed to put questions. If you desire a thorough investigation you must have, if I may use the phrase, a forensic inquisitor upon the Committee. You wish the course pursued by your predecessors, as well as by yourselves, to be inquired into; your predecessors are therefore as much interested in the matter as you are. You say that you are not more criminal than those who have gone before you, and ought you not to have an individual on the one side, and on the other accustomed and qualified to scrutinize evidence. I am aware that several of the gentlemen named are magistrates, who, I dare say, will put questions to the witnesses in an efficient manner, but the question relates to the constitution of the law, and to the practice under it, and you will require that all the details should be brought before the House. You mean to institute a thorough investigation, but how can that be accomplished without the means to which I have alluded?

moved, as an Amendment, that the name of Thomas Duncombe, Esq., should be substituted.

hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the House on the question. He had not the slightest wish to be on the Committee; though he certainly denied that he stood in the character of an accuser. He was perfectly sure that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) did not intend any personal disrespect by omitting his name as a Member of the Committee.

considered the Committee proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) to have been very fairly selected, and he had no wish to alter it; though he did not by any means consider that his hon. Friend (the Member for Finsbury) was at all disqualified sitting on the Committee.

considered the hon. Member for Finsbury to be the representative of the public opinion within the walls of the House, and although the modesty and delicacy of his hon. Friend restrained him, still he felt it absolutely necessary that his hon. Friend should be on the Committee. It would give confidence to the people out of doors. It was true his hon. Friend had given very strong expression to his opinions, but still he (Dr. Bowring) trusted that his hon. Friend should be named one of the Committee. It would be better that eleven Members should constitute the Committee, by appointing some other hon. Member in addition to his hon. Friend, than that his hon. Friend should be omitted.

moved that the name of Thomas Duncombe be another Member of the said Committee.

then moved that the name of Mr. Hume should be added to the Committee.

hoped that an indemnity would be given to the witnesses whom it may be necessary to examine before the Committee. It would be impossible to get persons holding subordinate situations in the Post Office to give evidence unless they were protected from the consequences, similar to the protection given to the witnesses examined before the Committee appointed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) respecting compromises at elections. Supposing a person had opened a letter without any warrant having been received, merely a verbal order, in that case he would be liable to be indicted for a misdemeanor. He wished to know how such persons were to be indemnified?

thought that nothing would be so unjust as to subject subordinate officers to the consequences of an act which they had committed under the control of their superiors. The responsibility certainly rested with the Government. But, if a legal indemnity should be requisite, it would be perfectly competent for the Committee to report the circumstances under which the House should be called upon to form their judgment upon that point. He should certainly think it inconsistent with the honour of the Government to visit a penalty on the subordinate officers of the Post Office establishment.

rose to move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and the state of discipline in the Gaols for the adoption of an uniform system of punishment, with such improvements in the management as can be safely adopted."

The hon. Gentleman said, having been requested by many persons, magistrates and others, to bring this question under the consideration of the House, I do so with some satisfaction, feeling perfectly convinced that some uniform system of prison discipline is requisite, and that the establishment of certain regulations ought no longer to be deferred. I only regret that some other gentleman, some county Member of extensive practice as a magistrate and well acquainted with prison discipline has not undertaken the subject, but as no one came forward, I have ventured to bring the subject before the House. It seems that although nothing as yet has been done on prison discipline, that at various times the subject has been under the consideration of the Legislature. So far back as 1821, a Committee was ordered by this House, by which in their Report it was recommended that a penal code for the government of gaols and of prison discipline should be enacted. In the year 1828 the subject was again brought before this House, at a subsequent period, in 1835, a Parliamentary enquiry took place on the subject of prison discipline, and in the 2nd year of her present Majesty's reign an Act was passed for the classification of prisoners and other improvements. The appointment of Inspectors of prisons has formed a new æra, and has been an additional step in the progress of prison amelioration. To these inspectors the country is much indebted for their valuable reports and indefatigable exertions. In the 8th Report of the Inspectors Home district, 13th August, 1843, they say, "the mischievous effects arising from the association of prisoners is no longer a question. There is a general conviction that the separate system for prisoners has been adopted with advantage." However, it is not my intention here to enter into the respective merits of the various plans suggested for the regulation of prisons, I desire not to point out to this House one plan as preferable to another, but merely to say, that a Committee ought to decide after the examination of witnesses which system ought to be adopted, and to recommend that principle of prison discipline most likely to answer the purpose we all desire to carry into execution. As I have said, I believe the Inspectors have done considerable service. At the same time, it must be admitted that sometimes they have involved themselves in great contradictions, and like all persons appointed to an office have desired to find fault sometimes without any cause. The contradictory statements are found in many of their reports, one of which recommends the tread-wheel, at a subsequent period another report finds fault with this mode of discipline. Every one must be aware that a great diversity of opinion exists not only amongst magistrates and inspectors, but in the community as regards one system of prison discipline over the other. The silent system, the solitary system, the class organization, the factory system, and the plan styled the working class, adopted very generally in the United States, particularly at Pitsburg and at Philadelphia, have all their advocates and opponents. Now, Sir, I do not stand here to advocate one particular system, I think that consideration would be better undertaken and performed by a Committee of this House; I will only say that great objections may be made to each if considered separately. It may be said of the Solitary, that it is perhaps the most severe punishment that can be inflicted on a human being. Dr. Johnson somewhere remarks, that "solitude is dangerous to reason without being favourable to virtue." Now there are instances of unfortunates being confined in a solitary cell for eight or ten years. How far solitary confinement has a tendency to cause insanity, seems doubtful; perhaps the hon. Member opposite, (Mr. Wakley) the Member for Finsbury, whose professional avocations call him to attend on many occasions, which may enable him to give information to the House will give us his sentiments on the subject. Now in reference to the Silent system, it is admirably, I believe, managed, both in the Model prison at Pentonville and in other places lately organized, and there seems no novelty in that discipline; it appears that the silent system was in use many years ago on the Continent, and its adoption here in England is not a novel idea or recent improvement. If I remember correctly, the same system of prison discipline existed, as reported by a Frenchman of the name of Courlois, who was incarcerated in the prison of the Inquisition at Lisbon in 1745. This person, in the account he gives of the prison, states all the cells are so contrived as to be under the eye of the governor; each prisoner is separately confined, never speaks, wears a mask whenever he stirs out of his cell, and if he requires any assistance, has a small clapper at his cell door, which may give notice to the turnkey. M. Courlois was imprisoned for being a free-mason; his account is dated 1745, and the discipline of the Inquisition prison much resembles that of the Model prison at Pentonville. It seems that the French Legislature have of late directed their attention to the several systems of prison discipline, and have come in the French Chamber of Deputies to the following resolutions:—

"That each prisoner should be separately confined at night that during the day they should be occupied at various trades according to their age, strength and capabilities, that special regulations should be established for the accused before trial, for the condemned after trial, and for those committed for petty offences."

In every respect the regulations of the French Chamber appear to be humane, judicious, and likely to answer the purpose of forming a systematic code of prison discipline. Why not imitate this example? Now if there is a variety of opinions, how are you to act, in what manner to determine the best course, why by a Committee of this House, which can thoroughly investigate the subject, examine witnesses, and draw up some general code of legislation! I think such a course would be more satisfactory to the community than a Commission, as all the evidence would be before the public. By some the Report of the Inspectors are said to be correct, by others this is denied. How can you convince the country that they are correct, unless you have an open investigation before a Committee? Much obloquy has at various times been thrown on the magistracy of the country, and an outcry raised against them which may be not only unmerited, but unjust, how are you to ascertain the truth unless you have a Committee to investigate the business. Under all circumstances, therefore, I cannot but think that a Committee ought to be formed for this purpose. Besides, these reasons for a Committee I deem it of the utmost importance to the welfare of the country that some regular system of prison discipline should be enforced in all the gaols in the kingdom; if something of the sort is not done, and done without delay, the centralizing system now so prevalent, I may almost say so fashionable, may follow, and the power of the Home Secretary entirely supersede that of the magistracy. I am fully aware that the right hon. Secretary at the Home Office has no such intention, he distinctly disclaimed it last year in May, in the following sentiments: that he felt fully convinced the discipline and superintendance of the gaols throughout the kingdom ought to be left to the magistracy of the several counties, giving, if thought, advisable, a power to the Home Office to inspect prisons under certain regulations. At the same time, I must say that I should much regret seeing any more centralization beyond what has already taken place. We have had centralization of the Poor Laws, we are about to have it in railroads, we shall have it in 1856 in the currency; all these centralizations may be of use and desirable, but I hope never to see the authority of the unpaid magistracy superseded, or the landed aristocracy and gentry of this country driven from their country residences by a centralized influence that would ultimately deprive them of all power, cause them to be disgusted with a country life, and drive them to the metropolis. The centralizing system did this in France and Spain two centuries ago. See what occurred in France and in Spain about two centuries ago, all the great landed proprietors were left without any influence in their respective districts, they abandoned their country residences, removed to the capital, lost their influence among their tenantry and neighbours, became insignificant and ended by losing all their influence which was totally absorbed by the Crown. I cannot approve of centralization. At the same time I cannot but be of opinion that the centralization of the Poor Law by Commissioners of the Currency, by the Bank Charter Bill, and of Turnpike Trusts, if they could be consolidated, are most advantageous to the country, though the New Poor Law has produced great privation and suffering amongst the lower classes in the community. To avoid further centralization, to do full justice to the unpaid magistracy whose conduct has been impugned, to reconcile the discordant reports of the various Inspectors, and above all, to prevent the centralization of influence over gaols, which will follow sooner or later if a settled code of prison discipline be not formed, which code I think can be best formed by the labours and evidence brought before a Committee of this House. I beg leave, Sir, to move, that a Select Committee be appointed in the words of my notice.

seconded the proposition. He had seen a correspondence between the Home Office and the Middlesex magistracy, calculated to excite the alarm of the entire country as to the intentions of Government on this subject. The Under-Secretary wrote:—

"Sir J. Graham is desirous, before he proceeds further, that arrangements should be made by the magistrates for the separate confinement of prisoners before trial, especially of the younger prisoners."

And the matter having been referred to Major Jebb and Mr. Crawford, they reported in favour of the plan.

"We further beg to observe, in relation to any plan of building which the magistrates may adopt for the separate confinement of prisoners, that, for the prevention of intercourse, it is indispensable that the windows of the cells should be closed, and the partition walls of the cells, such as to render impracticable oral communication from cell to cell, except by means which, by attracting the attention of the officers, would insure detection; that the cells should be ventilated, warmed, supplied with water, and provided with water-closets, as at Pentonville Prison; and that the yards should be so divided as to allow of each prisoner taking exercise alone." "The number of cells already built, or about to be constructed for, or adapted to separate confinement in this country, amounts to upwards of 8,000; and we feel justified in stating our conviction that the day is not distant when the individual separation of prisoners will be the established system of prison discipline throughout England."

Now, for any one to impose the horrors of solitary separate confinement on persons untried, many innocent—all presumed to be so—and perhaps some of them committed only through the ignorance or malignity of magistrates — for among the magistracy unhappily ignorance and malignity too often existed—to inflict these horrors, perhaps for three, four, or five months, on such a class of persons, was most inhuman. And when it was considered that wrong was frequently the result, who could for a moment consider the system Christian? Let the country look at the cost of the system. He asserted that the greatest delusion had been practiced—the grossest misrepresentation prevailed with regard to the cost of the system. When the estimates were before the House, he showed that the cost of each prisoner in the Model prison of Pentonville was within a few shillings of 40l. a-year. He had taken the trouble of calculating the amount expended on that prison, and on Parkhurst prison, in the Isle of Wight; and he would take the liberty of stating the result. The estimate of the prison at Pentonville, for the accommodation of 510 prisoners, was 75,000l.; but, in addition to that expenditure, they had been going on, year after year in voting other sums for its support, so that up to the present time it had cost the country 87,700l. The cost last year was 40l. for each prisoner; and, adding to that the interest of 5 per cent. on the cost of the building, they would have a cost for the cells of each prisoner of 8l. 10s. or an expense of 48l. 10s. for each. Now, what did a labouring man get? They saw, by those admirably written letters in The Times newspaper from Suffolk, that the labouring man there got 7s. or 8s. a-week for the maintenance of himself, his wife, and eight or nine children. But, allowing him 10s. a-week, that would amount to only 26l. 10s. per annum, while every one of the criminals—convicted felons in Pentonville prison—cost as much as 23 members of labouring men's families. The estimated cost of Parkhurst prison was 25,000l.; but 76,000l. had already been expended on it, and how much more it would cost he did not know, seeing that this very year there had been a vote of 5,000l for that prison. Now, when such delusion was practised for the purpose of inducing the country to adopt this system, some check ought to be put to it, and he wished that this Committee should be granted, in order that the whole subject might be inquired into. The inhabitants of Middlesex were beginning to open their eyes to the vast expenditure that was about to be imposed on them; but he saw, with great sorrow, by the Report of the Prison Commissioners, that preparation was now being made for 8,000 cells for solitary confinement. Were the House of Commons to sanction the system of solitary confinement for untried prisoners, they would desert the duty imposed on them by the plainest dictates of common humanity. He hoped that the country would raise its voice against such a system.

by no means complained of the course which had been pursued by his hon. Friend in bringing on this Motion this evening; on the contrary, he had to thank him for consulting his convenience on more than one occasion. It was not his intention on the present occasion to enter on a defence of that obnoxious system termed centralization, nor to discuss the various topics referred to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who, in addition to Prison Discipline, had touched on currency, railroads, and the Poor Law. He must observe, however, that it appeared some-what inconsistent that the hon. Member for Coventry should have seconded the Motion moved by his hon. Friend, for he could not conceive two Gentlemen agreeing in one Motion entertaining more opposite opinions on the subject which was the ground-work of the present discussion. His hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinnon) seemed to think that all power over these gaols ought to be concentrated in the Home Office, and that he (Sir J. Graham) wae anxious to have that power. But hs must say, the duties devolving on him in that office were not so very easy or agree able that he should wish for additional powers—

"Non mihi regnandi venit tam dira cupido."

The hon. Member for Coventry, on the other hand, objected to State Prisons, and to the interference of the Secretary of State. The calculations of the hon. Member for Coventry with reference to the cost of each prisoner in Pentonville were altogether erroneous. There was also an error common to the Mover and Seconder with respect to the use of the expression "solitary confinement," as applied to prisoners. Solitary confinement was unknown in this country. It did not exist in any prison in England at this moment. There was what was termed the separate system, which was as easily distinguishable and as widely different from solitary confinement as light from darkness. His hon. Friend wished to introduce uniformity of system, yet that was altogether at variance with his proposition that gaols should remain under the control of the magistracy. An approach to uniformity of discipline for the punishment of the same offence was possible, and he submitted to the House that on the whole the system as it now stood was advantageous as conducing to this result. The power of controlling the management of the county gaol was vested in the magistracy. To the Executive Government the power was given of inspection, and the right to visit; and the inspectors reported from time to time. The Secretary of State had certain limited powers intrusted to him by Act or Parliament; beyond those powers he could not go. He might advise the magistracy, he might make objections, he might offer suggestions, but they were entitled to weigh his reasons and the validity of his recommendations. Certain powers were absolutely entrusted to the Secretary of State, and one most important power related to the regulation of the diet of the prisoners. Differing entirely from the hon. Member for Coventry with respect to the Magistrates of England, whom the hon. Member described as acting from malignity and as influenced by the worst motives — entertaining the highest respect for them—he was bound to say that in the execution of his duty as Secretary of State, he was under the greatest obligations to them, and there could be no stronger illustration of it than the fact mentioned by the hon. Member for Coventry, that there were now building by the voluntary act of the county magistrates 8,000 cells for separate confinement in the different county gaols of England. Under any check that could be imposed, he believed confinement necessarily led to awful calamities affecting the human mind. But separate confinement properly watched was, he believed, on the whole, the best system of imprisonment. He saw in his place the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had had the opportunity in the most formal and searching manner of watching the progress of that system. From his professional ability and his general character no one was more competent to form an opinion on the subject, and he appealed to the hon. Member in support of what he had stated. His hon. Friend, the Member for Lymington, had compared the system adopted at Pentonville to the Inquisition; and what was the description he gave of the discipline of the Inquisition? "That every prisoner was debarred from seeing or speaking to any one—he was not even allowed to speak to the gaoler, and was masked in the presence of strangers." He entirely denied the analogy. He spoke in the presence of one of the Commissioners of Pentonville Prison, who, he was quite convinced, would not for a single day give his countenance to any prison in England, if rightly described as similar to the Inquisition, where the prisoners were debarred from seeing or speaking to any one, even the gaoler, and were masked in the presence of visitors. He ventured to say, so far from this being a correct description of Pentonville, his hon. Friend had never seen it. He believed that in the course of each day every prisoner saw at least eight or ten different persons; he was instructed by a schoolmaster, and by a chaplain, and for many hours of the day he had opportunities of conversing with different persons. He had attended the instruction given in the chapel by the schoolmaster to the assembled prisoners. It was true they had no opportunity of either seeing or communicating with each other, but they all saw the schoolmaster, who could see each countenance, and it was a most touching spectacle to observe the sagacity and eager desire of knowledge visible in the faces of the prisoners, and the effect the instruction imparted to them had on their countenances and demeanour. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that if they would themselves visit the prison at Pentonville the misapprehension which existed as to prisoners being debarred from seeing or speaking to any one, and being masked in the presence of strangers, would very soon be removed. The hon. Gentleman had said that he was the author of the system. However that might be, he was well aware that it was a system which required great caution in its administration, and which was liable to great abuses if not constantly overlooked. With respect to what had been called the factory system, he was not aware of the existence of that system in England, apart from the system known as the Separate system; but his opinion of it was, that it certainly tended to occupy the prisoner, and to give cheerfulness to his mind and thoughts. The hon. Member for Coventry greatly mistook the nature of the communication which he was reported to have made to the Middlesex Magistrates if he thought that he had desired to enforce the Separate system in the cases of prisoners before trial. All he had said was this—that if the county magistrates had the assistance of a paid Chairman, the consequence would be that numerous additional committals would be made by the metropolitan magistrates to the Middlesex Quarter Sessions; that by that circumstance the Middlesex gaols would become crowded with prisoners awaiting trial, and what he (Sir James Graham) had said was, that unless they could enlarge the space for the accommodation of prisoners so circumstanced, he could not recommend the appointment of a paid Chairman. Under these circumstances he had thought it his duty to lay before the Middlesex bench the best plans the Government possessed for the erection of prisons, and he (Sir J. Graham) was certainly of opinion that the best and cheapest mode of construction was by building separate cells. In saying this, however, he begged it not to be supposed, that because separate cells were erected, an entirely separate system was introduced. At night it was quite true the prisoners were locked up in cells separate from each other, but in the day time they were allowed to communicate under proper observation before trial. It was not his wish, however, to occupy the time of the House longer upon these points. At this late period of the Session, it could not for a moment be supposed that the appointment of a Committee would serve any good object, whilst, certainly, it might create great distrust and confusion arising from uncertainty. Upon the whole, too, as he had said before, he was so satisfied with the general improvement which was everywhere in progress, that he really did trust such an element of discord would not be introduced as the appointment of this Committee. At any rate, if appointed at all, he confidently hoped that they would not attempt to enter on such an inquiry during the present Session.

observed, that, at an early period of the Session, he had asked the right hon. Baronet a question as to the legality of permitting the separate system to be applied to the prisoners before their trial. It having come to his knowledge that such a practice had been pursued in several instances, he had ventured to inquire where the Act of Parliament was to be found which legalized such a punishment upon a possibly innocent person. All he would now say was, that he still continued in ignorance of the law by which such a serious wrong was perpetrated, and that, if there was no such legal power in existence, it was high time that the House stepped in to prevent such things from being done.

, in reply, said that the General Prisons Act gave the power of classifying prisoners, and nothing, in his opinion, was more important than that tried and untried prisoners in the same gaol should be kept separate. He considered the application of the system in those cases to be perfectly justifiable, but he begged it might be observed, as he had before mentioned, that the separation was only at night time, communication between the prisoners being permitted under restrictions throughout the day.

believed it was quite true that the particular Act referred to, gave the power which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; but, nevertheless, he quite concurred in the remarks of the hon. Member for Winchester, and he firmly believed that the House when they passed that Act never contemplated anything more than the due security of the untried prisoner. For his part, he could not conceive on what principle it was recommended that a man should be subjected to punishment before he was tried. The law only contemplated the security of the person, so that the prisoner should be forthcoming when he was demanded. With regard to this point—the treatment of untried prisoners—he had been much struck with what he saw in one of the gaols of Middlesex a few days since, when he had visited it in a professional capacity. Some question about diet had caused him to institute an investigation, and he found to his surprise, that for the first fortnight of a prisoner's incarceration, he was subjected to the lowest possible diet, being denied, in fact, all animal food for the first fourteen days of his confinement. Now was it fair, was it just, that a man who might not be guilty of the crime of which he was accused should be subjected to such treatment as that that took place in the New Prison, at Clerkenwell. The diet upon which these prisoners were placed, was gruel, bread, and broth: with the latter they were supplied three times a week. Bread and gruel were given them for their breakfast and supper. The governor and the medical officer of the gaol were both present, when he was conducting his investigation, and he was so struck with the fact, upon its being elicited, that he at once told them he would mention it in his place in Parliament on the first opportunity. With regard to the Motion before them, he felt with the right hon. Baronet, that it would be impossible to do justice to the subject during the present Session. At the same time he hoped that this discussion would keep the Home Secretary alive to the subject, and that very early next Session he would not object to a Committee being appointed. It was a question which humanity required that they should consider, and it had beatings which at first sight were scarcely apparent. Let them look, for instance, at the question of remands. Would it be credited, that people who were merely remanded by a magistrate, were subjected to hard labour, and were sent to gaol when in the last stage of disease? He knew of cases where people had died in the hospital of a gaol in less than a week after being committed. In one of the gaols of this country, too, there were a number of idiots undergoing confinement who had been committed by magistrates for various offences. As for the solitary system, of which something had been said, it ought to be called the demoniacal system, for nothing could be more atrocious or horrible, and when the separate system made an approach towards the solitary, he thought it ought instantly to be checked. When the Pentonville Prison question was considered, he had been one of the most active opponents of the scheme. He had anticipated no good from the establishment of that prison; but he had thought it might do much mischief. For the past four years, however, he had been called on to exercise the functions of his office in that prison, and, feeling strongly about it, he was determined to ascertain what was going on, and had even gone beyond the line of his duty to find out what were the effect upon the prisoners, of the system adopted there. The result had really surprised him more then he could express. Prisoners had been brought before the jury, and every person connected with the gaol, had been requested to leave the room: the prisoners had been informed, that there was not a single person present belonging to the prison. They had been told, that they would suffer no annoyance whatever from anything they might state, if they only told the truth; and they had been in every way encouraged to speak out boldly concerning all they had experienced. He had questioned them closely, as to how they were situated in that gaol, and in any other gaols in which they might have been confined. He had asked them which sort of discipline they preferred, and he was proud to say, that every prisoner whom he had examined had given the most unqualified testimony in favour of the system pursued at Pentonville. Of the diet they declared that it was ample; of their improvement in mind, they had declared that the instruction they received in the trades they were taught was most serviceable, and a great source of amusement. They declared that the confinement to which they were subjected, was not unpleasant in the slightest degree. They were asked if they had any complaint of any kind, and they unanimously answered, they had nothing whatever of which to complain. These were statements which might sound extraordinary, coming from him in that place; but he should be acting a very disingenuous part if he now concealed his real opinion. He certainly had for some time fancied that the tendency of this sort of separate confinement, wss to depress the spirits of the prisoners, and he thought he had observed in one or two of them, a lowness of spirit, which could not well be accounted for. They had all declared to him, however, that they were satisfied and grateful—so grateful, that they should remember what had been done for them to the last hour of their lives. Many of them who had been taught trades, spoke with the liveliest feeling of gratitude for the benefit therefrom resulting, and were in great glee at the idea of going to the Colonies, obtaining a ticket of leave, setting up in the occupation they had learnt, and gaining an honest livelihood. It had been publicly stated, that several of these prisoners had become insane in consequence of the confinement to which they were subjected. No doubt, three persons had been sent to Bethlem from this prison. When he was informed of the fact, he had instituted very strict inquiry, because he was informed, that no prisoner had been sent to the lunatic asylum from the other metropolitan gaols. From the depositions he had taken upon the point, he had, however, come to the conclusion, that the insanity in these cases was traceable to other causes. Two of the three persons, at least, had an hereditary predisposition to it. The only thing that he could suggest with reference to the prison, was, whether the probationary period might not be advantageously shortened from eighteen to twelve months; and, having thrown out the suggestion to it, he would no longer detain the House.

would not press the Motion to a division, hoping that the Committee would be granted early next Session.