Sitting of 24 June 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2°. Education.
Reported. — Copyholds Enfranchisement; Dissenters Chapels; Detatched Parts of Counties.
3°. and passed:—Salmon Fisheries (Scotland).
Private.—1 EAyr Bridge (No. 2).
2°. Stone's state; London and Croydon Railway (No. 2); Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland); Irvine's Estate.
Reported.— Marianski's Naturalization; Holmfirth and Dunford Roads; Monkland Railways (No. 2); Wishaw and Coltness Railway.
3°. and passed:—Rochdale Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members (10 Petitions), against Dissenters Chapels Bill; and by Dr. Bowring, from Newcastle, in favour of the same.—By Lord Ashley, from Banchory, for Legalizing Dissenters Marriages (Ireland). — By several hon. Members (7), against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By several hon. Members (35), against Repeal of the Corn Laws. — By Visconnt Duncan, from Printsellers of Bath, against Art Unions.—By several hon. Members (4), against Bank Charter Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from Glasgow, Neilston, and Cathcart, for Extending Factories Act to Bleach Works.—By Lord Ashley, from W. A. and M. A. Thompson, for Limiting Hours of Labour.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Drogheda, for Amendment of Municipal
1264
Corporations (Ireland) Act. — By Mr. B. Denison, from Thorne Union, and Sir J. Hanmer, from Kingston, for Alteration of Poor Law.—By Lord Ashley, from Bolton, Manchester, Dundee, and Leamington, for better Regulation of Tailors Trade.

POST OFFICE—OPENING LETTERS.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to present a Petition from Mr. Charles Stolzman, a Pole, complaining that letters addressed to him are secretly detained and opened at the General Post Office, and that this system of espionage is carried on to so great an extent that he cannot any longer with confidence and security avail himself of the sacred privileges hitherto supposed to belong to Her Majesty's General Post Office, and praying for inquiry. The hon. Member said he thought he should be able not only to satisfy the House that it was of the highest importance to the happiness and comfort of the community that the correspondence between man and man in a free country should be held sacred, but also to satisfy them that the personal wrongs of which this petitioner complained were of such a nature and of such a character, that the House would not refuse to afford him immediate redress. On a former occasion, when he called the attention of the House to this subject, it appeared that the grievance of which the then petitioners complained was supposed to be removed by the withdrawal of the warrant which had been issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for opening the letters of one of them. The Secretary for the Home Department did not then inform the House which of the four gentlemen who had addressed the House it was for the examination of whose letters at the General Post Office he had issued a warrant, but only said that it was with reference to one of the four that he had issued the warrant. When he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state which of the parties it was for the examination of whose letters the warrant had been issued, the right hon. Gentleman positively declined. He then stated that he believed he could, and accordingly he did, supply the omission of the right hon. Gentleman, by stating that it was the correspondence of Mr. Mazzini, a highly respectable gentleman, resident in this country, but having the misfortune to be an Italian refugee. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he had presented a petition singly and solely from Mr. Mazzini, what

1265
his answer would have been; and he again put the same question to the right hon. Baronet which he had put before—whether he were aware that Mr. Mazzini's correspondence had been opened at the General Post Office, and whether that proceeding had his sanction? because he conceived it must have been the same sort of answer as the right hon. Baronet had given when he said that a warrant had been issued. The right hon. Gentleman sheltered himself under a sort of mystery and silence, merely saying a warrant was signed, but you must find out for which of the four." Now, then, here was the case of one petitioner, Mr. Charles Stolzman, an officer of artillery in the Polish service, who complained that his letters were opened without any reason whatever, as he had never interfered with the politics of this country, or been engaged in any treasonable correspondence whatever. Whether the right hon. Baronet would screen himself behind the same sort of official solemn silence he knew not, but he trusted that the House would ascertain whether the great and enormous power which he admitted to be vested in one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State was abused or not. When his hon. Friend, the Member for Kinsale, asked what was the construction put by the Government upon the existing state of the law—whether they considered it only necessary that there should be one general warrant for opening all the letters of individuals; or whether they put this interpretation upon the Act of Parliament, which he believed to be the strict and correct interpretation of the Act, that there ought to be a separate warrant for the opening of each letter?—the answer of the right hon. Baronet was, that he must firmly but respectfully decline to answer any question on the subject. If a Secretary of State, or the Government, were justified in screening and sheltering themselves behind this official secrecy, he wanted to know what became of that responsibility of which we heard so much when any measure was submitted giving more extensive powers to the Secretary of State or the Government? He had heard the right hon. Baronet talk of that responsibility when the Poor Law Bill was under discussion; and, last year, when the Chelsea Pensioners Bill was proposed, the answer was, as it had invariably been, and
1266
always would be, that the Secretary of State in his place in that House, was responsible to Parliament, and could always be called upon for an explanation of his conduct, if it was thought that he had abused his power. Well, then, he now called upon the right hon. Baronet to explain the manner in which this grave and important power with reference to the Post Office had been exercised, and he maintained and was ready to prove, that the power which was entrusted to the Secretary of State was intended merely to be a security against disorder and treason; and he maintained that there was no pretence for violating the correspondence of Mr. Stolzman or of Mr. Mazzini, or the other Gentlemen, according to the acknowledgment of the Secretary of State. He (Mr. Duncombe) had before stated that he believed not one out of every 10 or 20,000 people in this country was aware of this power being vested in the Government, but he believed if he had said that not twenty people in the whole country were aware of such a power being possessed by them, it would have been more correct. In another place great judicial authorities were ignorant that such a power existed, and they put the same construction upon the Act of Parliament as his hon. Friend the Member for Kinsale. According to the strict letter of the law, it required, a separate and distinct warrant for opening any particular letter of any particular individual. This grievance now presented itself to the House and the country in two points of view. First, had the Government adhered to the strict letter of the law in ordering, if they had ordered, the letters of Mr. Stolzman, Mr. Mazzini, or the other individuals, to be opened? Had they violated or transgressed the strict letter of the law in issuing the warrant, or if they had not transgressed the letter of the law, had they or had they not abused the power vested in them, by opening these letters at all? He maintained that they had done both. He said that the Government had transgressed the law. He charged the Government with having done that—with having transgressed the law, and abused the power vested in them, and the Government ought not to shrink from it. It would not satisfy the public for the right hon. Baronet to stand up in his place again and say, "Respectfully, but firmly, I decline to answer the question." It must be observed that Captain

1267
Stolzman was a friend of Mr. Mazzini, and the opening of the letters of these two Gentlemen was part of the same system. He might admit that the Government should have the power of opening the letters of suspected persons in cases of internal sedition, or the letters of persons who had absconded from justice. But when the people looked to these cases they would think that the advantages and benefits of that power were not counterbalanced by the abuses of it, and would say with him that it ought to be abolished. In the case of Mr. Mazzini there was no ground for interference. This country had nothing to do with foreign powers, or their squabbles with their subjects, as long as those subjects conducted themselves peaceably and properly while residing in this country. The following letter had been received by him from Mr. Mazzini:—
"The warrant had been in operation against me at least since the beginning of March, sixty or seventy letters addressed to me have been opened, coming from perhaps twenty-five or thirty different persons, every care taken to avert suspicion, impressions of the seals taken, the cut sometimes so delicate that it almost required a magnifying glass to follow its trace, a double stamp invariably applied to alter or make illegible the mark of the hour at which the letter reached the General Post Office, and to conceal the delay. The first month or the first week of the system must have proved to the Home Office that neither England nor English safety was concerned in the correspondence. The suspicion must, therefore, have been continued for the sake of only a foreign power. The coincidence of these facts with the beginning of the agitation prevailing in southern and central Italy, affords another proof. There appeared in the Milan Gazette of the 20th of April last, and a few days before in the Suabian Mercury, an article saying that 'the English Cabinet had addressed to that of Vienna promises extremely satisfactory concerning the agitation prevailing in Italy, and especially in the territory of the Pope; that besides formally protesting against all suspicion of sympathy with Young Italy and its political tendencies, the Government of Great Britain, going still further, was anxious to put an end to the agitation; and in order to afford a direct co-operation towards that object, the English Government would put a stop to all agitating proceedings from the exterior, beginning with Malta; that as to the Italian exiles in London, hospitality would be confined to the mere limits of duty; that Mazzini would cease to be a person unknown to the London police.' A short time after that the Augsburgh Gazette said, that ' to escape the strict watch of the London police, Mazzini had
1268
fled to Portsmouth,'—false of course. I have, Sir, tried, and will try, to fulfil my duty towards my country, as an Englishman would do towards his own country; but I challenge any Secretary of State, past, present. and future, to bring forward, not a proof, but a single slight indication, of my being, or ever having been, connected with English affairs, or any of the English political parties in existence.
"JOSEPH MAZZINI.
"To T. S. Duncombe, Esq., M. P."
If that were true, and he believed every word of it, he wanted to know what pretence or right they had to open the letters of Mr. Mazzini and Captain Stolzman? Not only had the Government opened these gentlemen's letters, but he would undertake to prove that other person's letters had been most unscrupulously opened, not only in London, but in different parts of the country, within the last two years, under the orders of the present Government. Did the Government think that the public would be satisfied under such circumstances with flimsy pretexts. Did they, when the Duke of Bordeaux was over here the other day, open his letters? He wanted to know did they open his letters? No doubt it would be agreeable to Louis Philippe to know what was in those letters. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did open them. In all probability they sought to curry favour with Austria. But what had they to do with the Pope? They had no diplomatic relations with the Pope. And yet they were told by Mr. Mazzini that they opened his letters to gratify the Pope; he wanted to know, if they would not dare to open the letters of the Duke of Bordeaux, why should they so presume to open the letters of an individual, comparatively humble, though Mr. Mazzini was a man of eminent qualifications, who conducted himself peaceably. He meant, then, to ask for inquiry into this subject. He was satisfied that the Secretary for the Home Department was the very last person who ought to, or would, refuse it; for it was due to his own character—it was due to the character of the Government not to refuse inquiry, nor on such an occasion to rely upon the majority that sometimes supported it. It could not be said that any man was safe, unless they knew how this power was exercised. It had, in a former debate, been said, that which was morally wrong could not be politically right. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the

1269
Home Department, had rather disputed that position of the noble Lord. Who was to be the judge, he asked, of that which was morally wrong? He thought the right hon. Gentleman had some reason in his argument, then, on the factory labour. Here, however, there could be no question as to what was morally wrong. He would defy any man to have a doubt about it. What had been done? Both fraud and forgery had been committed, and unless fraud and forgery were morally right, he would claim the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this occasion. What had they done? They took men's letters, read and examined them, kept copies of them, then re-sealed and re-enclosed the originals in such a manner, that the unfortunate individual was not aware that the Government was in possession of his family secrets. He believed that much odium might have been removed if individuals had been apprised of what had been done—if the letters had been stamped on the outside "opened by authority." He would ask the hon. Baronet if he dare use information thus obtained in a court of justice in a trial for any political offence, as sedition or conspiracy. If the right hon. Baronet attempted to do so, he believed judge and jury, and every individual in the court, would unite in taking the right hon. Baronet by the head and shoulders, and turning him out of that court. The question was, had not the Government exceeded and transgressed the letter of the law, and abused the power which the law has invested in it? He contended that they had done both these things; he contended that they had abused that power—the almost sacred power vested in it by Parliament, of opening letters of individuals. If they had not done so, they need not shrink from inquiry before a Committee. In 1735 a Committee was appointed to inquire into some abuses which had occurred in franking letters, and certain abuses of the Post Office department. The appointment led to the same sort of discussion which was now taking place. Several Members complained of their letters having been opened, the intention being to discover whether any treasonable correspondence was being carried on against the Government; and it appeared that the practice of opening letters was so well known, that no man would ever attempt to carry on such a correspondence in that manner. Sir
1270
Robert Walpole at first opposed the appointment of the Committee, but afterwards granted it, on condition that they should not inquire into any thing that would tend to discover the secrets of the Government. Now he did not want to know the secrets of the Government—he doubted if they were worth knowing—but what he wished to inquire into was, whether the Government had abused the powers intrusted to it. He should therefore move that,
"The petition of Charles Stolzman be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances under which letters have been secretly opened, delayed, or detained at the General Post Office, since the 1st of January last; also into the forms in which warrants for that purpose have been issued, and the mode in which they have been executed and obeyed: the said Committee to report thereupon to the House; together with their opinion as to the expediency of making any alterations in the law under which the secret opening, delaying, or detaining of post letters is conducted."
Dr. Bowring, in seconding the Motion said, that a very grave responsibility would rest on the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he resisted this Motion, and a little consideration would point out to him that the credit of the Government itself would be damaged by that resistance. He hoped that it would be withdrawn, if the right hon. Baronet did not desire to be considered as an Italian sbirro, or if the Government were not indifferent to the imputation of being a Cabinet Noir. Let the Government bear in mind how much its reputation would be damaged by refusing protection to those exiles who came over here in search of an asylum. What must be the feelings of such men, who came here in admiration of our institutions, to find those institutions turned against them, and they themselves placed in peril of their lives by one who, once at the head of a rebellion in his own state, was now the irreconcilable foe to all who sought to improve the political condition of his kingdom? He (Dr. Bowring) was one of those who believed that the greatness of this country depended, in a considerable degree, on the confidence which foreigners believed they might repose in its people when once thrown on their protection. Public opinion in the present case would not, he believed, be satisfied by the explanation here given, or by the

1271
assurance that the objectionable warrants were no longer in existence. The grievance complained of should not only be removed, but means taken to prevent its recurrence. The right hon. Baronet in being instrumental, if such were the fact, to copies of correspondence stopped in this country becoming known abroad, was not perhaps aware of the extent of the misery to which he might be a party. He did not perhaps estimate how much the reputation of this country and its Government would suffer in the eyes of Europe by its becoming the willing tool of those Governments which were everywhere resisting the tide of human improvement.
Sir J. Graham: I can assure the House that I am by no means disposed to underrate the importance of the question now brought under its notice. I must say that, although on a former occasion I returned my thanks to the hon. Member for Fins-bury for the fairness of the course which he had then taken—I cannot on the present occasion return my thanks to him for the adoption of a similar proceeding. I received from the hon. Member a notification, which I hold in my hand, to the effect that at the meeting of the House to-day it was his intention to present another Petition complaining of letters being opened at the General Post Office, and that he would do so as soon after half-past four o'clock as he should find a convenient opportunity. But he gave no notification whatever with respect to the nature of the complaint, no specification of the name of the party complaining, and no information as to the course which he meant to pursue. Until, therefore, the hon. Gentleman rose to address the House I had no knowledge whatever of the contents of the Petition which he has presented: and much less was I prepared for his making a motion, not with reference to a particular complaint only, or to the individual whose Petition he was presenting, but with reference to the general power vested in the Secretary of State to issue warrants for the detention of letters at the General Post Office. The hon. Gentleman assumes the fact, he assumes it boldly, that in this case a warrant has been issued; and the Motion rests upon that assumption. Now I beg the House to draw no inference from the course which, in conformity with my sense of public duty, I intend to take upon this occasion. From the notice given to me on a former evening I have gravely reflected on my duty with
1272
respect to complaints of this nature. No public servant has greater respect for public opinion than I have; but at the same time although it is my sincere and ardent wish to stand well in the opinion of my fellow-countrymen, yet holding a high and responsible office by the favour of my Sovereign, and being maintained up to the present time in the execution of the duties of that office by the confidence of this House, not for the sake of my private character, not for the indulgence of my private feelings, do I hold that I should be justified in making any abatement whatever from the uncompromising discharge of a duty, which I deem to be, not only conducive to the public good, but necessary for the maintenance of the public security. After reflecting upon this matter I have come to the conclusion, that while the law vests in the Secretary of State the power of issuing warrants of this description, it is not consistent with the public interest that he should answer in his place, in the House of Commons, interrogatories such as those which the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to put. On a former occasion I firmly refused—although not, I hope, in a manner of which the House could complain—I firmly refused to state in what cases warrants had been issued. There were four complaints; and I said that I might have given an evasive answer which would have left the inference that in none of the four cases had a warrant been issued. But I spurned any such evasion, and I thought it was my duty not to blink the fact that in one case out of the four I had issued a warrant. I refused, however, to go any further; and I say that the House and the country must not draw any inference in this case if I persevere in the same silence and reserve. The assumption of the hon. Member for Finsbury in the case of Captain Stolzberg is, that a warrant has been issued. To that assumption I do not hold it to be consistent with my duty to say "aye" or "no;" but I beg the House not to draw any inference from my silence that I have issued any such warrant. I stand upon the ground that the authority is vested in the Secretary of State by Act of Parliament. The assertion of the hon. Gentleman who has made the Motion is, that I have transgressed the law—that I have violated either the letter or the spirit of the Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman said he believed this was the fact; he had said more—he said that he could prove it. Now if the hon. Gentle-

1273
man can prove that letters have been improperly detained or opened at the General Post Office, the Act of Parliament expressly declares that any person so opening or detaining letters is guilty of a misdemeanor, and that person may be indicted. If I have violated the law, or exceeded my duty, let the hon. Gentleman take the legal course, and let him put me to the legal proof that I have not transgressed the law or exceeded the power vested in me. If any individual has been guilty of a misdemeanor let that individual be prosecuted. The tribunals of the country will do justice between the parties, and the individuals so convicted will be liable to punishment. [Mr. T. Duncombe:A penalty of 20 l.]—I beg the hon. Member's pardon. The party so convicted is guilty of a misdemeanor—as great a misdemeanor as the law recognises, and is liable to fine and imprisonment, The Secretary of State, too, if he transgresses the law, will also be amenable to the civil tribunals. Sir, I absolutely demur to entering into any explanation on the subject. I demur even to a Committee of this House as a tribunal before which to prosecute such an inquiry. I say the hon. Gentleman may institute legal proceedings against the individual who detained the letters without the authority of the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State have violated or exceeded the law, he also is responsible to the injured laws of his country. The hon. Gentleman, I think, intimated that party jealousy had nothing to do with this question. I am quite confident that such is the case, and I appeal to both sides of the House whether it is not so regarded? The question is—has the law been violated or not? I can state this—and I state it boldly —that the power exercised by me has existed ever since the Revolution; that it has been in constant use since that time and from a long antecedent date; and whenever I have exercised it, I have exercised it in the accustomed form. I have in no degree departed from the usage sanctioned by the highest constitutional authorities who have been my predecessors in office. In the most solemn manner I give my denial to any exercise of authority on my part contrary to the Act of Parliament. I acted on the best advice. I say that to the best of my judgment, under difficult circumstances, I have acted in conformity with the law, as I understand it. My conscience is pure in this matter, and in the discharge of my public duty I consider it a solemn and imperative obligation to demur to a pub-
1274
lic inquiry of this kind on the part of the House. It will therefore be my duty to resist the Motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Macaulaycould assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to look at the Motion then before the House as any thing but a party question, and to discuss it without the admixture of any thing like party views; but he must at the same time observe, that the topics here presented were such as he could wish might be avoided; for, he must say, that the language and the manner of the right hon. Gentleman were not those of a man who was conscious of the very peculiar position in which he was placed. Even if the right hon. Baronet had the power, and said that the power was necessary, and that in these cases it had been properly used, still it was a power that it was most odious to use, and for which strong reasons ought to be given; for, even if the power were necessary, still it might be obvious that it was one singularly abhorrent to the genius of the English people. The power here exercised was one which the House had, in cases of necessity, entrusted to the Government; but then it was a power that the House was bound to watch how it was exercised, and in which they ought to know precisely what had been done; the nature of the warrant; how often such warrants had been issued, in which, too, they ought to be told the course of proceedings that had been adopted. This was a case, beyond all others, in which the Minister ought not to think he had done enough to satisfy a House of Commons, by merely saying that he had the power; he had exercised it; he was responsible for the exercise of such power; but he would give them no account of the manner in which he had exercised it. That was to encourage the suspicion that the power had been abused, because he could not see, and this he said without casting the slightest imputation on the right hon. Baronet, he could not see how so considerable a power as this entrusted to a Minister and exercised by him, could be used, without the Minister deeming it to be proper to do something more than this, or only thinking that it would be sufficient for him to say, that " he was responsible." Now, he thought, that where there was such a power exercised, the question was not to be so treated. They had then the fact as to such a power existing, and then came a very serious question upon this most important Motion of the hon.

1275
Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, calling upon them, amongst other things, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the present law giving that power. Now, he begged to say, that for the present state of the law neither party of that House was answerable. Both parties had received it from their ancestors—both parties, when in power, had used it—and he did not impute to either the having used it dishonestly or oppressively; but now, he said, since their attention had been called to this power, it could not, without very great modifications, be permitted to last. He began by saying that he defied any person to show him the difference between a letter of his being taken from him when in the Post Office, and a letter taken from him out of his desk. He defied them to show how the public safety could justify any more a letter of his being taken out of the post-bag than it could justify its being taken out of his desk. Why was the letter put into the post-bag, except for the purpose of being transmitted to the person to whom it was destined? It was given to the Post Office, and for the purposes of revenue a monopoly was given to the Post Office. The sole purpose was the safe transmission of the letter: but the turning the Post Office into an engine of the police, was, he said, utterly abhorrent to the public feeling. Let them only consider, if there was a single reason for examining letters to or from him in the Post Office, which was not good and valid for examining letters that he had in his desk; let them take it that there was a treasonable plot—the most treasonable ever thought of: the letters might contain treason. Then the treason could be as well discovered in the letter in his pocket, as the letter when transmitted. As to the inconvenience, it was the same to him in both cases, and the plea for both was the public necessity. It was the same whether a person's correspondence was examined before it reached him, as after it had reached him. There was no difference as to the injury done to him. If the public danger was the same, the inconvenience to the individual was the same. Then, why make the distinction? He knew that in cases of suspected crime the letters could be examined and produced in a court of justice, whether taken in transit or in the person's pocket. But then, if a letter were delivered and they took it wrongfully, they would be liable to an action for damages; and if they used violence, they would be severely punished. Thus, in the
1276
case of Mr. Wilkes, when his letters had been seized, and carried to Lord Halifax and the Under Secretary of State, he brought an action for those letters being wrongfully seized and without probable cause, and the result was, that he gained his action, and they were obliged to pay, by the verdict of a jury, 1,000 l. damages. That was what he called Ministerial responsibility. He wanted to know, when a letter got to Mr. Mazzini, if it was so sacred that it could not be touched, and yet before it came to him that it could be examined—that, upon the most vague suspicion, fifty or a hundred letters could be thus stopped, and yet Mr. Mazzini never know whether they were examined or not. If it were possible to show him that the examination of a letter before it arrived was less injurious to the individual than the examination of it in the desk after it arrived, then he would give up the argument. It was idle to tell him that this was necessary; for worse things than this might be done, and sustained on the same plea. The fact was, the whole of the arguments in favour of the practice belonged to a class which the sense of the country had repudiated long ago. The question was not whether there were advantages in the spy system; for that had been decided by their ancestors long ago. They were not now to determine whether they were to adopt the practice of employing spies, as was done by foreign governments. And what difference was there between their having spies upon words spoken, or words written? In common fairness, he said it was no difference to him between a government breaking the seal of his letter in the Post Office, and the government employing a spy to poke his ear to the keyhole, and listen to the conversations he carried on. They might regard it necessary to the public safety to do this—to say that such a person was suspected, and that they had one of his servants feed to betray him. They might allege the same excuse for the police reading letters, as for listening to conversations; and there might be some advantage in this. There could be no doubt there might be an advantage in breaking open letters. No one denied it; but then was it fitting that it should be done? In the same way, did any one doubt that there was an advantage in having police spies? But then the country did not approve of them. The French had an advantage in having police spies. No one doubted that the spy system enabled them to bring to

1277
justice many who must otherwise have escaped. It was the same thing as to torture. There could be no doubt that as long as the English law sanctioned the use of the torture a great many crimes were detected by it. It had, too, its advantages. —[Cries of "Oh, oh."]—Yes; for the instant that Guy Fawkes was shown the rack, out came at once the entire story of the gunpowder plot. Even this torture, as well as the spy system, had these advantages, but then this country had determined long ago that such were pernicious, debasing, and dangerous modes of maintaining its institutions. Their ancestors declared that they would rather take the risk of great crimes being committed, than owe their security to that system or those means, which would destroy the manly spirit of the people, on which far more reliance could be placed than all the schemes and decrees that could be invented for maintaining their greatness and independence as a nation. He did not, he again repeated it, mean to affirm that there had not been a fair intention in the power that had been exercised, but then he could not but see that the use of the power must have pernicious consequences. Suppose a Minister were to say, "Since I have been in office two letters have been opened at the Post Office. One was opened in reference to questions of great importance regarding the public peace; another as it was supposed to be of a nature to throw great light upon the Exchequer Bill Case." Information of this kind, given by a Minister of the Crown, would have a great effect in quieting the minds of the public. But the right hon. Gentleman having refused to give any information of the sort, forced on the conviction that this practice had been carried on to a very great extent by him, and under peculiar circumstances of concealment. He could never believe, that if the right hon. Baronet could have denied the charge that seals had been counterfeited and stamps replaced, in order to conceal the opening of the letter, he would not have been glad to have done so. The right hon. Baronet must know that unless protected in particular cases, the power exercised by the Government, and the practice of counterfeiting seals and replacing stamps was a malum in se, as well as an infraction of the Common Law of the land. The right hon. Baronet admitted that being empowered by this Act of Parliament to do acts which were illegal at Common Law, he had authorised the opening letters at the
1278
Post Office, detaining some, and sending on others, taking care, however, to disguise the fact that they had been opened; yet he would not satisfy the House and the country by telling them how often he had done this; nor the circumstances under which he had done it. The right hon. Baronet would state neither the grounds upon which he acted; nor would he allow them to see the warrant which he had issued for the purpose. When he saw this, he (Mr. Macaulay) asked whether the House of Commons was not entitled in a case like this, to take steps for a further inquiry? He had put the case hypothetically; he could do nothing else; he was enforced to to do so, for the right hon. Gentleman would tell them nothing of the facts of the case. Two years ago the manufacturing districts were in a very excited state, there was a great deal of violence used, and attempts made to keep people from going to work. He could not forget that whilst these things were going on, an assertion was very generally put about that these troubles were got up in an underhand manner by certain Gentlemen belonging to the Anti-Corn Law League. Now, this suspicion existing, what evidence was there to be obtained in support of it; what proof so easy for a Government to obtain as by opening the letters of the Gentlemen, many of them Members of this House, known to be most prominently connected with the affairs of this society. He was not a member of the Anti-Corn Law League, he was not one of its representatives in this House. But, as a Member of Parliament, he wished to learn whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State might not, on some occasion like this, think it his duty as a principle to open all the letters of some thirty or forty most hon. Gentlemen, representatives of the people in this House, some having reference to important public affairs, others filled with the secrets of their respective families. Now, as far as regarded Englishmen, the hardship of the case only went so far as this, that his secrets were read by public officials; but the case was a very different one in regard to the unhappy foreigner. They could not hang an Englishman, whatever his letters might contain, without the ordeal of a Judge and Jury; but with respect to foreigners, he really did wonder that men who assumed to be so humane as hon. Gentlemen opposite, should think so lightly of the consequences of this sort of procedure. Some unhappy foreigner came to our free

1279
land, and relying upon the supposed good faith of the English Post Office, he writes to his friends with greater freedom than he would otherwise have done, or than he would ever do abroad. Then came the Secretary of some Foreign Embassy to the Secretary for the Home Department, applies for information as to the contents of the letters' of certain parties, information which receiving, he sends over to the native Government of the unhappy foreigner, who carefully lays it by. No evil consequences result to the unfortunate writer whilst he remains in this country; but at length, unconscious of what awaits him, he goes back to his native land—he actually walks into the lion's mouth, in a land where there is no jury to protect him, and upon evidence got up in this manner he would be consigned, perhaps, to the inside of a dungeon, for life. He believed that the House would admit that he had never been one to indulge in this House in reflections upon the institutions or internal affairs of any foreign country whatever. On the contrary, he thought that as a rule the tone and manner of the House, as of the Government, ought to be marked with something of the respect and decorum of diplomatic procedure. But whilst they did not set themselves up as judges upon neighbouring governments, at least let them not set themselves up as their spies. This he must say, that if the continuance of this power in the hands of our Government would lead to such applications from foreign powers, for the revelation of the contents of letters passing through our Post Office, he thought the only course would be to repeal this law altogether. For he thought it might sometimes be putting a Ministry into a very awkward position, if they should have to refuse to the Minister of a foreign friendly power information of this kind, which he said he required for the interests of his Government. He thought if this practice were found to exist, that it would be better to enable a Minister to say at once, " Parliament has not given us power to do what you ask us to do," than to run the risk of giving offence by saying, "We have the power, but we do not choose to exercise it in your case; all that can be done in the matter must be done with such publicity as will give an injured, helpless man, an equal chance of redress and justice being done him." His feeling upon this subject was so strong, that even if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman had gone much further than it did, if it had been for leave to
1280
bring in a Bill to take this power from the Secretary of State, he would have cordially voted for it; but, as it was, he would cordially give his vote for the Motion for a Committee to inquire whether this power had been properly exercised or not.
Captain Bernalwas not aware whether any hon. Gentleman on his side of the House was satisfied with the ghost of an explanation which the right hon. Gentleman had given on this subject; he, for one, could not pretend to be; nor could he bring himself to give his vote upon this occasion without notifying to the public his extreme dissatisfaction at the monstrous doctrines propounded by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of that explanation. He had always understood that it was the proud distinction of this country, that no one should be liable in it to the petty espionage which went on in Foreign States. He was truly disappointed to find that the contrary doctrine was now maintained. He certainly was not surprised at the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; recollecting, as he did, an observation which had fallen some time back from a noble Colleague of his, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonial Department, that "a Government to be loved must first be feared"— knowing the influence which the noble Lord possessed over the right hon. Gentleman, he certainly was not surprised to find that he now acted upon that doctrine. But there was one point of view in which he thought it was very proper that this matter should be considered. If the public gave the monopoly of the conveyance of letters to the Post Office, it was under the consideration that they would enjoy equal security as if they were conveyed by other means. Now, he thought that after the way in which this power of opening letters appeared to be exercised, it might be very proper to consider whether the monopoly of the Post Office ought not to be withdrawn. From what he heard, he believed that not only had this power been applied to the letters of some foreigners, but that the letters of some Irishmen had also been opened. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman, covering himself up in the tattered garment of his public virtue, to refuse explanation upon these charges, and content himself with saying, "sic volo, sic jubeo," but would the House or the country be satisfied with such a manner of meeting a

1281
question of so much interest and importance? There was another fact bearing upon this subject to which he would refer before he sat down. In the course of the debate the other evening, in reference to the case of Count Ostrowski, it was alleged that some of the papers of that gentleman had not been returned to him; to which Her Majesty's Government replied that every paper had been returned. Now there were grounds for the belief that the case was not so; and, indeed, that one very important paper had not only been withheld from Count Ostrowski, but had been given up to the Russian authorities.
The Earl of Shelburnesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said in the course of his speech, that if any person thought himself aggrieved by the opening of his letters at the Post Office, it was competent to him to proceed at law against the authorities, and compel them to produce the warrant under which they had acted. Now, if there was no difficulty in the production of the warrant by the Post Office, he could see no reason why letters which were opened, under due authority at the Post Office, should not be forwarded to their destination opened, or at least with an intimation written or stamped upon them, that they had been opened. The contrary was the practice at present, great care being taken to conceal the fact of the letters having been opened. But he thought that the course he suggested would be the most manly one, and most satisfactory to the public.
Sir R. Peelsaid, there is one remark that has been introduced by the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down upon which I wish to say a word. The hon. Member has attempted to introduce a case which has no immediate bearing on the one before the House, and he has introduced it in a manner calculated to create an undue prejudice; but, as it appears to me, without any foundation whatever. He referred to the case of the Polish nobleman, Ostrowski, and he says he has every reason to believe that the papers belonging to the gentleman have been detained by the police, and not returned to him. Sir, I can state, upon the authority of my right hon. Friend, that no authority was given by him for the detention of any paper—that he instituted a most rigid inquiry among the police, and the result of that inquiry was that he had
1282
every reason to believe that every paper found in the possession of that gentleman was subsequently delivered up to him— that every paper, without exception, was restored to him—that there was no obstruction or no detention of, nor no communication of any paper found upon that gentleman to any foreign diplomatic agent, or any other person whatever. So far as my right hon. Friend's authority is concerned he can speak upon it conclusively, and so far as his information goes, founded upon the inquiries instituted, I believe what I have stated to the House is perfectly correct. In the course of the debate hon. Gentlemen have dealt very largely with assumptions as regards the powers of the Secretary of State. Hon. Gentlemen have assumed that my right hon. Friend has spoken of that power as if it were of a trivial nature and to be exercised without a serious and deep feeling of the responsibility to be attached to it. Sir, there was not one word that fell from him that could justify such an assumption. My right hon. Friend said that he as Secretary of State was invested with a power by law, which not only authorised him, but called upon him to exercise it from considerations of public duty, and which led him to think that it was necessary for the public interests that he should exercise it; but he never said a word which would countenance the impression that he did not attach the utmost importance to the exercise of that delicate power, and which was invested with the greatest importance and responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman says he assumes that the power has been very generally and universally exercised, and on what ground does he found that? What are the facts before the House? We had a petition the other day, and a petition to-day, and my right hon. Friend comes down to the House to-day without knowing even the name of the party from whom the petition emanated. The hon. Gentleman gave notice that he should put a question as to the opening of letters, but he did not give notice that he would present a petition, nor the name of the party from whom it emanated, and the hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with a Motion of which he had never given the slightest notice. What are the facts? A petition was presented the other day from four individuals, each asserting that his letters were opened at the Post Office. Another petition is

1283
presented to-day from an individual whose name is not mentioned to my right hon. Friend. Now, it is quite clear that three out of the four whose petitions were presented the other day entertained impressions that were utterly unfounded, my right hon. Friend having distinctly stated that with respect to three out of the four individuals he had issued no warrant authorising the opening of their letters. My right hon. Friend was afraid —and there perhaps he erred—that if he stated that which he might literally and with perfect truth—that the allegations in the petitions were unfounded—he was afraid that it might be inferred that he had denied the statements contained in all of them; and therefore, in admitting that the allegations of three out of the four were unfounded, he thought there might be some unfairness in not admitting the fact with regard to one, and allowing the House to draw an inference from his general denial, he frankly admitted that with regard to one there had been a detention. My right hon. Friend declines to make any admission as to the facts upon which he proceeded, but he asks the House to draw no inference from his silence. Only a few days since three individuals made the same statement, and he states that these individuals, so far as he is concerned or knows, were under a completely erroneous impression. He says there was one warrant issued for the examination of these letters, and therefore my right hon. Friend is warranted in stating, "although from consideration of public duty I cannot make any admissions, I ask the House not to draw any inference from my refusal to answer the question." Such are the facts—what is the law of the case? The power of ordering the opening of letters in the Post-office was conferred upon the Secretary of State by an Act passed in the reign of Queen Anne; and seven years ago, when certain alterations were made in the arrangements of the Post Office, not by the present Government, but by a Government of whom the noble Lord the Member for London was the representative in this House, this power was retained in the consolidated Act then passed. In my opinion that Government was justified in retaining the power they did. They amended those laws, and the late President of the Board of Trade introduced the New Post Office Act as it now stands, retaining the pro-
1284
vision nearly in the same words as it was in the Act of Anne. I think, Sir, my right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in respect of the exercise of such a power to decline entering into explanations. If the House thinks that the power ought to be extinguished, let it be done by a motion, of which notice is given, or by a Bill for the repeal of that part of the Act introduced by the late President of the Board of Trade. The speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Macaulay) was such as well might have prefaced a motion for the repeal of the Act introduced by the late President of the Board of Trade, but scarcely applies to the present question. My right hon. Friend stated, and I think he was perfectly justified in so doing, that he should not enter into any details, and upon that it is assumed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that Gentlemen, on account of the political part they had taken in that House, were liable to have their letters opened. [Cheers.] Oh! doubtless this assumption is very convenient, because you think it likely you can extract a denial in this case; and you assume that if you can get a denial in one case you will have established a president by which it can be asked for in every other, so that every gentleman who finds his letters detained may present a petition to this House and ask the Secretary of State if they have been detained by his cognizance, or whether he has issued a warrant to sanction them being opened. It is clear that on this occasion my right hon. Friend is labouring under difficulties, not on account of what he has done, but from the position in which he is placed, and from the duties assigned to that position. That which it is important to state has been slated by my right hon. Friend, viz., that he has not introduced any new practice with respect to the opening of letters, and that he has not carried the practice beyond that which was pursued by Mr. Fox and Lord Grenville, when they preceded him in the functions of his office. He has acted in conformity with the law, and he has not carried the powers of the law beyond the usage up to the present time. If the House choose, in consequence of the inability which my right hon. Friend's public duties impose upon him, of entering into the details sought for, to accede to the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry—if they think it right to take that course, of

1285
course they can do so; but I think it would be a course highly inconsistent with justice to individuals, and most pernicious to the public interests.
Lord J. Russellagreed in much that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, in objecting to the manner in which this subject had been brought under discussion on the present occasion; but at the same time, judging from all that had taken place, he did not think that any difference in the mode in which it had been brought forward, or that any more formal notice of the Motion intended to be made would have led to any more satisfactory result. The right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Home Department) acted upon the resolution which he had adopted on a former occasion, of refusing to give any information in the matter. As to the law and practice of opening letters at the Post Office, for both were now called in question, the right hon. Gentleman said, that the whole question was, whether he had exceeded his legal authority in what he had done. Now he did not understand that this was the question which the House had now before it. So far as the legal power went, he certainly understood, having held the office now held by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Secretary of State had the power to issue a warrant for opening the letters of certain individuals where occasion of public requirements seemed to call for it. He might have been mistaken in the interpretation of their law; but such had been the interpretation of it before the right hon. Gentleman came into office, and the right hon. Gentleman had gone upon the same interpretation of it since. With regard to the reasons which should lead to the exercise of this power, he certainly thought that the power ought to be given as it now was exercised, at the discretion, and under the responsibility of the Executive Government, or that it ought to be withheld altogether. With respect to the suggestion of a noble Lord who had recently spoken, that a mark should be placed upon every letter that had been opened, intimating that fact he thought that it could not properly be adopted: because, if the practice was to be of any use, it must be in this,— namely, the discovery and defeating of conspiracy. Now, supposing that a person had written a letter to another, intimating that a rising was determined upon in any
1286
part of the country, and that he could next week give information when it was to take place; of what use would the information obtained by the Government be if the first letter was sent to the correspondent with an intimation that it had been opened? The parties would thus be put upon their guard, and the object of the Government to defeat the conspiracy would not be attained. It was obvious that this power could not be made use of in times of danger if it were saddled with these restrictions. Now, with respect to the law itself, it was stated by Sir Robert Walpole that the power given by it was to be used in times of public danger, and he at the same time stated fairly the grounds upon which it ought to be used. Sir R. Walpole gave as an instance the case of the Bishop of Rochester, Bishop of Atterbury, whose plot were mainly carried on by means of correspondence through the Post Office, and copies of which were afterwards produced against him. Now, he thought, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should also on the present occasion, have taken a similar course to that adopted by Sir Robert Walpole, and that without stating what had been his conduct on particular cases, he should have stated the principle upon which he considered this power ought to be exercised, namely, for the prevention of public danger, whether at home or abroad, and whether for the discovering and defeating of conspiracies at home in regard to this country, or in regard to foreign states. In such a course he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly justified in acting; and in the situation which the right hon. Gentleman occupied, it was for him to judge whether the public danger, under the apprehension of which he acted, was imminent or not. But the right hon. Gentleman took no such ground, and had not given the House an opportunity of judging whether this power had not been used in the way alleged—namely, to enable foreign governments to persecute individuals of their subjects. He thought that this would have been a most unjustifiable exercise of the power reposed in the right hon. Gentleman, and if the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had not acted upon such a principle and with such an object, he should not have thought it necessary to have voted for a Committee on this subject. But if the right hon. Gentleman did not think he could make this

1287
declaration, it would not have been beneath him or unworthy of him, to have consented to this enquiry. He recollected an instance, when Lord Melbourne was in the Home Office, when an inquiry was instituted into the conduct of a person of the name of Popay, who being a policeman, was charged with having joined seditious meetings, taking part in them, and exciting the people to use inflammatory language, in order afterwards to give evidence against them. Mr. Cobbett, upon this subject, at first moved a general inquiry, which was not agreed to; he afterwards renewed his application, and moved an inquiry into the particular case of Popay. Upon this occasion, Lord Althorp stated that private espionage was never the purpose of the police establishment, and that he was sure that the two gentlemen at the head of it would never lend themselves to such a proceeding; that such a proceeding would be quite contrary to the institutions of the country, and that there could be no objection to the Committee of inquiry which the hon. Member asked for. A Committee was consequently appointed, who made a Report upon the conduct of this person, and afterwards a Motion was made upon the subject in this House. Now did the Government of that day consider that this was a Motion against themselves? Did they use any of their authority to quash or impede this proceeding? They did no such thing. Why they felt there would be an end of the principle of the responsibility of a Government if there could be no inquiry. A government might always content itself with saying, "We will neither affirm nor deny certain allegations—we will not explain anything, because we know we have such a majority in this House that we can quash and defeat all inquiry." This would be to keep the House and the country in ignorance of facts, and thus to escape responsibility. For his part he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was at all to blame on this occasion, perhaps he was no more so than Lord Melbourne was in the case of Popay. But when Government set itself up upon the principle of refusing all inquiry, they put an end to all the grounds upon which they should enjoy the confidence of that House. With respect to the Motion for a Committee on this subject, he thought it one much too important to be discussed in this incidental
1288
manner. In 1837, when this Act was introduced, he thought it a power which the Government should have; but that was not the question at present. The question was, whether Her Majesty's Ministers having refused to give any explanation of their conduct in the exercise of this power, the House should not interpose its authority to insist upon inquiry.
Mr. Milneswas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought it consistent with his duty to state to the House that he had not communicated to the Governments of any foreign powers any facts which might have come to his knowledge in this somewhat uncommon manner. If the right hon. Gentleman had done so, he would have satisfactorily met the objections of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, though the right hon. Gentleman had not thought fit to do so, he could not vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite for he thought it important that all matters of this kind should remain in the full secrecy of the Executive, and that all information obtained in this manner should be for their own use and conduct, and should not be communicated to any other parties. He was strongly against a public Committee, which would bring to light many private matters which at present were confined to the knowledge of the constituted authorities. He objected to the course proposed, because it might have the effect of depriving the Government of a power which they ought to be possessed of, to be used in cases of great emergency and difficulty. He, therefore, if his right hon. Friend would give them to understand that the power had not been exercised in this instance for the purpose of affording information to foreign powers, should think the question would at once be decided satisfactorily to all parties.
Mr. Sheil: There is an obvious distinction between the course pursued by the last and the present Government. My noble Friend the Member for London admits that when he was Secretary for the Home Department, warrants were granted for opening letters, but did he ever refuse an inquiry into the circumstances under which these warrants were issued? Had a case been brought before the notice of the House like that which has been presented to it by the Member for Finsbury, the noble Lord would not have shrunk from investigation. The Prime Minister has stated, that his right

1289
hon. Friend was conscious of his responsibility—but to whom is he to be held responsible? He is, it seems, to account to himself, and to be amenable to no other tribunal than that which is erected in his own breast. It is to the House of Commons that every Minister is responsible. I know of but one exception—the Horse Guards are not, it is held, within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, the military branch of the Executive has been considered to be beyond the cognizance, for special reasons, of this House. The Duke of Wellington may indeed play the part of Achilles, "sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas," may be more appropriately adopted by the great warrior as the maxim by which his proceedings should be regulated. But to the Secretary of the Home Department, the same lofty impunity is not to be conceded. Suppose that it is right that this prerogative should be vested in the right hon. Gentleman, it by no means follows, that this House should not inquire into the manner that prerogative has been employed. Make a Minister irresponsible, and you may be sure that he will become arbitrary, capricious, and regardless of public opinion—but let him be answerable to the House of Commons, for the employment of the power with which he is entrusted, and that power will be cautiously used, and only in cases where its use is justified by the peculiar circumstances to which it is applied. How has this power been employed by the right hon. Gentleman? If my hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, had merely alleged that letters had been opened at the Post Office under a warrant from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and had stated nothing more, if he had not relied upon any circumstance which should induce the House to believe that an important privilege had been abused, it might be reasonably contended that there was no sufficient ground to conjecture that any departure from propriety had taken place. No case for an inquiry would have been made out—but when the Secretary for the Home Department is charged with having perverted a prerogative committed to him for the suppression of treasonable conspiracies against the State, and with having abused a most questionable privilege, for purposes wholly unconnected with the original object of the law, and when the Minister refuses explanation
1290
of every kind, it becomes a matter of most serious consideration for the House of Commons, whose rights and duties are fully as important as the functions and the prerogatives of the Home Department, whether they are not entitled and were bound to inquire whether a Minister appointed by the Crown, but responsible to the country, has been guilty of a gross violation of his duty. The accusation preferred against the Secretary for the Home Department, is not vague or indefinite. He is charged with having clandestinely opened the letters of an Italian gentleman, at the instance of a foreign Government. The letters of Italians, living under an Austrian despotism, and addressed to their political asciate who has found a refuge here, have been opened and read, and their contents have been communicated to those for whose sake this breach of trust has been committed. In the Milan newspaper reference is made to this fact, and it is stated that Mr. Mazzini is under a peculiar surveillance. If this be true, it is not at inquiry that this House should stop; nothing can be more discreditable. In the efforts of Italy to throw off the ignominious yoke under which she groans, we ought not to interfere—a British army need not be sent to Ancona —but I do not hesitate to say, without hazarding a contradiction from any man whose contradiction is of value, that Englishmen ought to look with a feeling of sympathetic solicitude in the glorious endeavours of the men who, animated by the same passion for liberty as yourselves, have perilled everything dear to men in a cause which disaster may befal, but to which disgrace cannot attach. To that disaster we ought not, at all events, to become contributary, by means utterly at variance with the finest characteristics for which Englishmen are renowned. So utterly repugnant are the instincts of Englishmen to the practice imputed to the right hon. Baronet, that when it was alleged that these misdeeds had been committed at the Post Office, that report was at first incredulously heard—the people of this country could not believe that anything had been done in England which was so unworthy of England, and which appertained to the mouchard system of continental surveillance—but indignation has succeeded to incredulity, and that that indignation is well-founded, there is

1291
too much reason to believe. It is not to the North of Italy that this surreptitious scrutiny is in all likelihood confined—the patrimony of St. Peter, the dominions of his Holiness the Pope, are in all probability under the care of the Home Department. Better have a nuncio at once, than that this clandestine intercourse with the Vatican should be carried on. But the compliances of the Home Office are not limited to the Austrian Ambassador; to the complaisance of the right hon. Baronet Russia has an equal claim. Letters addressed to unfortunate Poles, who have found a refuge in this country, have been broken open. Poland has been abandoned: she is bound hand and foot, and the boot of the Tartar is on her neck, but let us not accumulate the shame that belongs to the violated Treaty of Vienna, by betraying the kindred of many a wretched exile to the resentment of the most inexorable of mankind. But these, it may be said, are the mere fictions of a malevolent and factious fancy. Say so—if in all this there be not the word of truth, say so— plead "not guilty," instead of demurring to the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, and relying upon that sort of confidence which results, not from your personal merits, but from a Clause in an Act of Parliament, behind which you are entrenched. I would not trust any Minister of the Crown with the power of opening the letters of foreigners to oblige a foreign Minister; and if the letters of Englishmen are opened in times of internal peril, the exercise of the right ought to be open and avowed. I very much doubt whether that right is at all required. England does not stand in need of such expedients for her safety; not upon such expedients as these—not upon practices which are abhorrent from our habits, and which reduce an Englishmen in his self-esteem— not upon Fouché espionage—not upon the opening, the re-sealing, and the perfidious transmission of letters with a falsehood stamped upon them—not upon such expedients as these, but upon the rational loyalty of Englishmen to the Throne— upon the personal attachment to the Sovereign—upon the value which Englishmen set upon their institutions—upon the love of freedom associated with the love of order, England may depend for her preservation; the miserable privilege, so discreditable to those in whom it is vested, and which is so liable to abuse, ought to
1292
be abolished. That which is deemed utterly scandalous in private life, ought not to be tolerated in any department of the State; and from the statute-book which it dishonours, this ignominious prerogative ought to be effaced for ever.
Mr. S. Worthyas the question was to be brought to a division, was anxious to explain the reason why he should without any hesitation give his vote in favour of the Government. Were he to do otherwise, he should think he was giving his countenance to those unwarrantable assumptions which had formed the staple of the accusations which had been brought forward against the Government. It had been admitted by all the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had spoken, that on the present occasion they were not called upon to decide as to the policy or necessity of the law under which the Government had acted. Whether the power which the law gave had been in this instance properly exercised he did not consider himself sufficiently in possession of the merits of the case to say. He conceived he was making no discreditable admission in saying that. This power was one which was seldom called in question, although on serious and important considerations it had been admitted by successive Governments, and he would not at present undertake to say that it might not be a necessary part of the power of the Executive. That, however, was not the question at issue. The question was, whether the House should support the hon. Member for Finsbury in his demand for a Committee to inquire into the exercise of this power in the specific case which had been made the subject of accusation against his right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary. Now, in considering that question he had a right to ask himself whether such a fair and legitimate presumption had been raised as to the conduct of his right hon. Friend as would justify him in supporting the Motion; and he was bound to say, that in his view, no such case had been made out. He felt convinced that his right hon. Friend desired to execute the power of his high office in such a manner as would enable him to stand with perfect justification before the House and the country, and he could not for a moment suppose that he had, in the exercise of those powers, transgressed those recognised and acknowledged rules alluded to by the noble

1293
Lord, the Member for London, which all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors had acted up to the present time. But he maintained, supposing there was anything in the charge which the hon. Member for Finsbury had brought forward, though he did not admit there was, the proper course had not been taken in coming to the House in the first instance. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that, if the parties complaining felt aggrieved, the courts of law were open to them to remedy the injury. If the House were to accede to this demand, and consent to the appointment of a Committee, then no one act could be performed by a Minister of his own responsibility, and in pursuance of the great and necessary powers vested in him by Parliament which might not form the ground of a similar appeal. The power entrusted to the Government of dispensing the secret service-money was in many respects analogous to the power now in question, and if the present demand were admitted, how could they resist any application for inquiry into the application of any part of that fund.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had commenced by saying that he would explain the reasons why he intended to vote against the Motion, and then with unusual candour he acknowledged in the next sentence that he did not know anything of the merits of the case. The hon. Member persevered in his course, and resolved not to know the merits of the case. The hon. Member was consistent in giving his vote, for he refused to acquaint himself with the case, or to permit the House to become acquainted with the facts. The hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. Milnes), the only other hon. Gentleman who had spoken unconnected with the Government, had lamented that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had not assured the House that he had not communicated to the Foreign States interested in the matter the information he had obtained by the exercise of the power in question, [Mr. Milnes: That was not what I said.] The hon. Gentleman said he should be glad to know what the right hon. Gentleman had discovered, and if he had communicated it to the Foreign State? He had stated the entire argument of the two hon. Gentlemen who had stood forward as the supporters of the Government. There had been but
1294
four speakers against the Motion, and this was the whole of the argument advanced by the only two who were unconnected with the Government. Then came the two right hon. Baronets—the Secretary for the Home Department, who was the party accused, and the Prime Minister—on that occasion not a very happy pair. Since he (Mr. Wakley) had been in Parliament, he had never been so much surprised as by the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury might consider it to be his duty on all occasions to defend his Colleague—if so, he must say that the First Minister of the Crown, had not always the most pleasant occupation, and that occupation could seldom be more disagreeable. The manner of the right hon. Gentleman, from the beginning to the end of his speech, showed that the right hon. Gentleman did not like his case; and the manner in which he treated it, considering his great ability in debate, and his undoubted powers of argument, clearly proved that it was a bad case he had to defend. The right hon. Baronet, in the course of his argument, insisted upon one thing, which had previously been referred to by his right hon. Colleague of the Home Office; and it is necessary that the attention of the House should be drawn to it, as it gave a graver character to the subject than when it was first introduced. The right hon. Baronet denied that his right hon. Colleague had notice of the name of the party in the second case. His hon. Friend however, had on this as on the former occasion, informed the right hon. Baronet that he had another Petition to present on the same subject, which he should present that evening. But, said the right hon. Baronet, here you treat me unfairly, here I am taken by surprise; for I have not had the name of the party communicated to me, and, therefore, in pursuance of the course I have previously adopted, I will give no further information in this case. Two Petitions have been presented to the House complaining of those proceedings, one of them containing four names, the other only one. There had been five complaints since the 1st of January, and the right hon. Baronet had given an answer as to four of them; but he complained, because he had not received previous notice of the name of the fifth. Now, he should like to know how

1295
many names had the right hon. Baronet in hand? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon had said, that public opinion was against the practice. Why, public feeling, which might be called public indignation, was against it. He heard it denounced in every quarter and in every house. The people asked what was the House of Commons going to do next; is it about to justify the Minister in opening all our letters. A gentleman—a politician—had said to him, only last Saturday, that he had always considered a Government that employed spies was the most odious that could exist, but he had at length discovered a worse—that was a Government that became spies themselves, and the present Government was clearly becoming a spy Government. Surely nothing could be more contemptible, or odious, or reflect more injuriously on the character of the Government and the country, if such an odious practice was to be tolerated. The question proposed by his hon. Colleague (Mr. T. Duncombe) would apply a test to the House, as to the question of Ministerial responsibility. Ministerial responsibility was a thing he had heard of often since he came into Parliament, but had never found it. He had never seen it, he could not catch hold of it. He begged the hon. Member for Pomfret to apply his mind to the subject of Ministerial responsibility, as it was purely poetical and imaginative—it might be in the clouds, but it was not in the House. On the former evening, when this subject had been under discussion, the right hon. Baronet had admitted that what had been done had been done on his own responsibility. Very well. Next, they had certain persons coining there and saying that in the intricacies of the Post Office their letters had been opened, and presenting a petition complaining of the practice, and the right hon. Gentleman said it was true he had done it; but I shall say no more about it; you may talk about it as much as you like, but we will give you no further information; what has been done has been done on my own responsibility. In ordinary parlance, we understand responsibility to mean that the person responsible is amenable, and amenable to some other authority for any particular act committed in the exercise of that responsibility; but how far was the right hon. Gentleman amenable or answerable to that
1296
House? Answers he will give none. The parties who had had their letters opened had all the facts and the reasons for that interference, concealed from them; consequently they could not tell how to make the right hon. Gentleman responsible or amenable for his conduct but by such a Motion as this. But the right hon. Baronet did not like this mode of proceeding, and his Colleagues at the head of the Government was resolved to vote against it, and to carry all his weight against inquiry. Then where was the responsibility? Now, observe: there were two parties concerned in this case—besides the right hon. Baronet, the House, and the public; the parties who employed the right hon. Baronet, whose agent he had been, and the unhappy individuals whose secrecy had been violated. Did they want to avoid inquiry? No, they came and demanded it. These treasonable men, of dishonest, violent, and illegal conduct—they said, "We have done no wrong, we do not fear investigation; we want to expose those who employed your own secretary." Now, he said that the right hon. Baronet had a duty to discharge to these parties, whether criminal or not, and it was due to them to ascertain whether they were innocent or guilty; in the one case, he ought to protect them by proclaiming their innocence, and, in the other, to condemn them by proclaiming their guilt. He wished to know how the right hon. Baronet would get out of this cleft stick? He said it was the bounden duty of the House to insist on this inquiry. The right hon. Baronet had said that he demurred to the tribunal. He remembered that the hon. Member for Knaresborough had also demurred to the House as a tribunal, and he believed the loudest ironical cheer on that occasion had come from the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. Now, however, they were both in the same boat, and he would advise the hon. Member for Knaresborough to look out, for it was in a sinking state. He hoped the House would not put itself in the same position; but that it would resolve to maintain the Government in the observance of those securities, and confine them to that practice which had been proved to exist in the Home Office; or they would find
"In the lowest depth, a deeper still."
Viscount Howickwas astonished at the argument advanced by the hon. Member

1297
for Yorkshire. The hon. Gentleman had asked why had not these parties applied to a Court of Law? his answer was they did not dispute the legality of the Act. It was admitted that the Act of Parliament gave to the Secretary of State the power of issuing warrants of this kind, but what he denied was, the propriety with which in this particular instance that very dangerous power had been exercised. His right hon. Friend, the Member for Dungarvon (Mr. Sheil) had made an appeal to the House, the force of which every hon. Member must have felt. "Were we," asked his right hon. and learned Friend, "to become the spies and agents of foreign powers?" Was a system of that kind to receive the sanction of a British House of Commons. He would call upon them to recollect what they were sanctioning, if they refused inquiry. They not only passed over a case, which in the primâ facie view of it, was fraught with suspicion, but they sanctioned the principle laid down and the doctrine contended for by the right hon. Baronet, which, if they passed over in silence, would, he thought, inflict a great blow on the free communication of ideas which had so long been the boast and pride of this country. For what said the right hon. Baronet? A power was given by law, and I will exercise it: but I refuse to tell you in what cases I have exercised it, and on what grounds. Whether in many cases or few, whether on grounds trifling or grave, I will give you, the House of Commons, no explanation or satisfaction. If they once admitted this doctrine, every gentleman who received a letter through the Post Office, would be placed at the mercy of the Government. He did not suspect the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) of issuing a warrant to examine all the letters of his political opponents, as had been suggested. But if the principle contended for were recognized, and if the Minister was to be supported in refusing all explanation, future Secretaries of State might, if they chose, with perfect impunity, examine the letters of their political opponents. The right hon. Baronet refused all explanation, and at the same time he said, that what he had done, he had done upon his responsibility. Why, was it not, as the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, a mockery of words. Responsibility implied, that the parties exercising power should be liable to be called to account
1298
for the due exercise of that power. But he went further, and concurred in what had been stated by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Edinburgh. Although he had hitherto been disposed to concur in the continuance of a power which had existed in previous Governments, and had, he believed, been always exercised on principles wholly different from those now contended for—though he had sup. ported the continuance of that power as it had been previously exercised—he concurred with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Macaulay) that the very little advantage that could be obtained from it was totally unworthy of consideration, when compared with the shame which would result, if it were permitted to be exercised in this way. If it were to be exercised at all, let it be done subject to the check of responsibility. Let the power be exercised upon intelligible principles. Let the letters be opened, if necessary, but a power exercised no man knowing how or when, was liable to the greatest abuse. No doubt, as his noble Friend had said, it might not be advisable to put a stamp upon letters that had been opened; but surely it was not creditable to the Government to counterfeit stamps, in order to conceal the fact that letters had been opened. They were told that the safety of the country required the exercise of this power, but the same argument might be urged in favour of the employment of spies. The safety of the country did not depend upon violating the confidence of the Post Office by employing spies. This country was in no danger from secret plots. How was this system to be worked? Was it as his hon. Friend had said, by counterfeiting the seals of letters? It appeared that the letter was opened, the seal counterfeited, and the letter resealed. Now, was there anything in the Act of Parliament that warranted such an act? He believed such an act—whatever might be the facts of the case in other respects—was a gross abuse of the power entrusted to the Government under the Act of Parliament. Could anything be more morally wrong than to counterfeit the seal? Against such a practice he for one protested. He did not know sufficient of the facts to express an opinion as to the case before them. All he could say, was, that as it stood, it was a case of great suspicion; but in voting as he should do, for the Motion of his hon. Friend what he meant

1299
was, to protest against the practice and principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
Lord Stanley. It is not, Sir, ray attention to enter into any details upon this question, for this is precisely one of those in which Gentlemen in opposition may, if they choose, enlist in their favour the popular sympathy, inasmuch as they have the advantage of holding out arguments of popular policy and popular principles while the Government entrusted with the responsibility of office have in that responsibility fetters imposed upon them, and are precluded, in the due discharge of their duty, from staling the facts and entering into the circumstances of the case. We are, therefore, left in this position— that the House of Commons may, if it think fit, take the facts stated by the hon. Member for Finsbury and act upon the assumptions advanced and the statements put forth by the petitioners in their Petitions to the House. Why, Sir, the hon. Gentlemen opposite have argued as though it had been avowed and acknowledged that the warrant had been issued for the opening of Mr. Mazzini's letters. I know of no declaration on the part of either of my right hon. Friends that could have given rise to such a supposition. My right hon. Friend has stated distinctly all he could state consistently with his duty; though he would not state broadly that there was no truth whatever in the allegations made by any of the former petitioners —he stated that in one case he had exercised the power entrusted to him by law, he refused distinctly to state in respect to which of those individuals that power had been so exercised. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Duncombe) referred to the individual whose Petition was before the House, and said that he knows that person's letters had been opened, but produced no proof whatever of that assertion. But the hon. Gentleman says, give us a Committee to inquire into the allegations of the Petition. Why if we were to allow every individual who came forward and reported that his letters had been opened to come to the House of Commons and say, give me a Committee to inquire into the truth of my charge, and the Minister for refusing his sanction to such an inquiry, is to stand under the imputation of sanctioning the opening—even admitting that the facts were so, which my right hon. Friend has not said, and that a warrant was
1300
granted for the purpose, or that he must consent to a Committee to inquire, into the practice of a law which no one could say was not of high political importance— if the House of Commons sanctioned such an argument, you might have every day Petitions presented to you of persons complaining that their letters have been opened; and every day the Government might be called upon to answer the question. "Did you, or did you not, authorise the opening of Mr. A's or Mr. B's letters? [An hon. Member: And why not?] Sir, I protest against the assumption (for it is no more) that the letters have been opened. The noble Lord opposite says, "We call in question, not the law, but the manner in which it has been executed by you." How do you know in what way it has been exercised? The noble Lord takes upon himself to assert, and that without the shadow of a proof—he takes upon himself to assert, in opposition to the declaration of my right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham), given in his place as a Minister of the Crown—given with a full knowledge of the facts—in opposition to that declaration the noble Lord asserts that the Government have exercised their right in a manner widely different from that in which it was exercised by their predecessors. That was the opening of the noble Lord's speech: he says, "I don't complain of the power you possess, but the mode in which you have exercised it." And my right hon. Friend answers this and says, ''How I have exercised that power, in what cases I have applied it, and with regard to what individuals, I will no further answer you in this House, no more than would the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) get up and say, with regard to what individuals and in how many cases it was exercised while he was in office;" and rightly would the noble Lord refuse such information were it asked, and rightly had his right hon. Friend refused it. They would do the same under an equal sense of the pressure of public duty. But my right hon. Friend went further, and said, "I have exercised this power on the same principles and under the same restrictions, and to no greater extent, than it was exercised by preceding Governments, and by the Government of which the noble Lord himself was a Member, the Government which renewed the Act of Anne, and re-enacted this power." And I do say that this is a power which, if exercised at

1301
all, must be exercised in the confidence which the House of Commons places in the Government. How often have I heard hon. Gentlemen opposite call for some inquiry into the manner in which the secret service money is disposed of. The answer always was, that is precisely one of those matters which must be left to the oath, the conscience, and the honour of the individuals in whom by law the power of expending this money is vested. It is exercised under no further responsibility than that which consists in the conscientious discharge of the duty of office, and in conformity with the terms of the Act. It is one of the powers entrusted to a Ministry, for the due exercise of which your security, and your only security, is the honour and conscience, and oath of the accredited Minister of State to whom that power is entrusted. This, Sir, is a similar power, and I will tell the House this—expressing, mind, no opinion as to the necessity of the power—that if that power be continued to a Government at all, it is a power, the whole importance, the whole use, and the whole efficacy of which depends on its being applied with secresy. It is on these grounds that my right hon. Friend resists the Motion for inquiry, it is on these grounds that he refuses to enter into the details of the specific case to which he may have applied the power with which he is invested. We admit frankly, broadly, and fully—and, by the bye, with respect to this point, the hon. Gentleman opposite has made another most unfounded assertion—we admit, I say, frankly, broadly, and fully, that the cases in which this power should be exercised are those in which the public safety is threatened. It is a power which, by this or by any preceding Government, has very rarely been exercised, and then only upon information which has made the Ministers believe that they were warranted in exercising it by considerations of public good. Far from being an everyday practice, the opening of letters in the Post-office is of very rare Occurrence. The power is one of great delicacy —to be exercised with great caution; but it is a power which, if you mean a Minister to exercise, must be exercised with secresy, without his being responsible or called on to account for his conduct—without, I say, being culled on to answer interrogatories as to particular cases, or state the reasons for and the grounds on which he
1302
has exercised that high and most important discretion.
Sir G. Grey: The noble Lord, with his usual courage, has rushed to the rescue of his Colleagues in the hour of their necessity; and it is not before he was wanted, in point of argument, that the noble Lord has arisen to defend the administration of which he is so able and distinguished a Member. But I doubt if he has adduced a single argument or made a single assertion much calculated to mend the cause which he has taken up. The noble Lord says, I think without foundation, that the reason why the right hon. Gentleman near him was totally silent, and refused to give any information when invited to do so, with respect to the circumstances of the case before the House is, that in the exercise of the duty devolving upon them as Ministers of the Crown, they are precluded, by a sense of duty, from furnishing the sought for explanation. Now I undertake altogether to controvert this position. What is the charge brought by my hon. Friend? Why, with a moderation which does not always distinguish him, he does not deny that this power should be vested in a Government for certain purposes; but he brings forward an instance of its exercise which he undertakes to prove will convict the Government of having exercised the power vested in them for one purpose to attain another and distinct purpose. It is not brought as a charge against the right hon. Baronet that in certain cases he has exercised a power given to him by law; but that he has exercised it—at the instigation, at the bidding, of a foreign Government— not for the purpose of detecting some plot against our Sovereign Lady the Queen, or against the constitution; but for the purpose of enabling the agents of a foreign Government, or a foreign Government itself, to obtain evidence against certain of its subjects exiled from their country upon political grounds—persons whom it has always been the pride and the boast of this country to receive with hospitality and kindness. Now, it is quite an unfair representation of the case to say that we are calling on Government, on any specific case, to lay the whole facts and circumstances of such case before the House; but I ask the noble Lord—I ask the House whether it was incompetent for him, or inconsistent with his public duty, to pledge his word to Parliament—to give

1303
his assurance that the case in which the power was exercised was one in which the exercise of that power was contemplated by those who conferred it—that is, a case of apprehended danger to the State; and further, that he never had exercised, or could think of exercising, the power at the bidding of any foreign Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire—professing that ignorance in which, owing to the reserve of Government, we all find ourselves—said that he would not vote for the Motion, because his doing so would be equivalent to assuming the correctness of the allegations advanced. Now, these allegations might have been denied without going into the case. The principle upon which Government has acted might have been stated; but, as the matter stands, if I were to vote against the Motion of my hon. Friend, I feel that I should be doing this, that I should be sanctioning a right which Government claims the exercise of, viz., of examining letters, of opening them, of making what use they please of their contents—not for State purposes —not for purposes connected with general safety—but for the purpose of serving the private ends of foreign Governments. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that he disavowed that principle, I, for one, should have been satisfied. But, looking at the facility with which such a principle could be stated, without as I believe, the infringement of any official duty —looking at the facility with which such a disavowal could have been made, and coupling that facility with the absence of any such statement, of any such avowal— considering that line of conduct as virtually setting up claims on the part of the Government to detain, open, and examine letters, I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
Viscount Sandonwished to explain, on behalf of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. S. Wortley), who was accused of having pleaded ignorance upon the subject, that he merely wished to say that he did not intend to enter into the question of the policy of the power being entrusted to Government. For himself, holding in such high esteem as he did the Government, and thinking that in the present case it had acted for the good of the country, and legally and constitutionally, he could not consent to hamper the most important functions of Government by supporting the Motion.
Mr. Wyse: Some doubt had been thrown on the circumstance as to whether the letters had or had not been opened. He had seen them that morning, and examined them minutely, particularly that addressed to Mr. Mazzini, and no sort of doubt was left upon his mind but that they had been opened in the Post Office. Two letters were addressed at the same time to Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Hamilton, by the same person. They had been posted at the same time. The one reached Mr. Hamilton at the proper hour, a little after ten o'clock, and the other reached Mr. Mazzini, a little after twelve o'clock, and the post-marks had been altered by another stamp having been pressed upon them. This he saw with his own eyes. There could be no doubt, then, but that one of the letters had been opened in the Post Office. Government appeared to have acted in compliance with the wishes of a foreign potentate; for an article had appeared in the Milan Gazette —a journal published under such strict censorship that its contents became almost demi-official—to the effect that the English Government had not only determined to put a stop, as far as they could, to any demonstrations of sympathy with the agitation going on in Italy, but would go still further in the suppression of that agitation.
Mr. T. Duncombehad been charged by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, with want of courtesey in not informing him of the specific charges which he intended to bring forward that evening. Now, upon a former occasion, he wrote to the right hon. Baronet, inclosing him a copy of a Petition he intended to present the following day to the House, and he expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to state whether the letters in question had been opened with his knowledge and consent. He (Mr. Duncombe) presented that Petition, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that the letter of one of the petitioners had been opened by his warrant— which of them it was he did not say—but he also intimated that that warrant had been withdrawn, and, therefore, that the grievance no longer existed. Why was that course adopted? In order, he contended, to stifle and give the go-by to all inquiry. Now, he had another Petition sent to him yesterday, of which he did not enclose a copy to the right hon. Baronet,

1305
but he wrote a note to him, to say that he intended to present another Petition relative to opening letters, as soon after half-past four o'clock as the right hon. Baronet found it convenient to attend. He did think that that was, under the circumstances of the case, quite a sufficient notice. If the name was given, the right hon. Gentleman might have recalled the warrant, and, as he did before, insist that no grievance existed. But were these warrants so numerous that he could not tell whether or not one had been issued against Captain Stolzman? Why, the deeper they got into the transaction, the more need there seemed to be fully to investigate it. He was quite satisfied that the public would not be satisfied with the explanation given. This was no longer a mere Post Office question, but one of confidence in the Government, and what he asked was whether he had made out a primâ facie case for inquiry? He thought he had. He had accused Government of having yielded to the wishes of a foreign potentate, and exercised the power—not for the only purpose for which Sir Robert Walpole thought its exercise allowable the avertion of internal danger. No case of internal danger had been urged at all— no defence of the sort had been ever attempted to be set up, and he thought that the country would come to the conclusion —and justly—that in shrinking from investigation Government were admitting their criminality.
The House divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 206: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Busfeild, W.

Aldam, W.

Butler, P. S.

Archbold, R.

Christie, W. D.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Clay, Sir W.

Bannerman, A.

Clements, Visct.

Barclay, D.

Cobden, R.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Collett, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Collins, W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Craig, W. G.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Currie, R.

Bernal, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bernal, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Blackstone, W. S.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Denison, W. J.

Bright, J.

Denison, J. E.

Brotherton, J.

D'Eyncourt,rt.hn.C.T.

Browne, R. D.

Divett, E.

Buller, C.

Drax. J. S. W. S. E.

Buller, E.

Duff, J.

1306

Duncan, Visct.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duncan, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Dundas, F.

Ord, W.

Dundas, hn. J. C.

Paget, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Paget, Lord A.

Ellis, W.

Parker, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Pattison, J.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Pechell, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ferguson, Col.

Philips, G. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Philips, M.

Forster, M.

Plumridge, Capt.

Fox, C. R.

Ponsonby,hn.C.F.A.

French, F.

Power, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Protheroe, E.

Gisborne, T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Granger, T. C.

Rawdon, Col.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Roebuck, J. A.

Hall, Sir B.

Russell, Lord J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Russell, Lord E.

Hawes, B.

Russell, J. D. W.

Hayter, W. G.

Scholefield, J.

Heneage, E.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Hindley, C.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hobhouse, rt. hn.Sir J.

Smith, B.

Hollond, R.

Smith, J. A.

Horsman, E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hoskins, K.

Standish, C.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Howard, hn. J. K.

Stewart, P. M.

Howard, Lord

Stuart, W. V.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Stock, Sergt.

Howard, hon. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Howick, Visct.

Strutt, E.

Hume, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Humphery, Ald.

Thornely, T.

Hutt, W.

Towneley, J.

Jervis, J.

Traill, G.

Johnson, Gen.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Langston, J. H.

Tufnell, H.

Langton, W. G.

Tuite, H. M.

Layard, Capt.

Turner, E.

Leader, J. T.

Vane, Lord H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wakley, T.

Leveson, Lord

Walker, R.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Wall, C. B.

McGeachy, F. A.

Wallace, R.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Warburton, H.

Mangles, R. D.

Watson, W. H.

Marsland, H.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Williams, W.

Morris, D.

Wilshere, W.

Morison, Gen.

Wood, C.

Morrison, J.

Worsley, Lord

Muntz, G. F.

Wyse, T.

Napier, Sir C.

Yorke, H. R.

O'Brien, J.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Conor Don

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Adderley, C. B.

A'Court, Capt.

Alford, Visct.

Acton, Col.

Allix, J. P.

Adare, Visct.

Antrobus, E.

1307

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Fellowes, E.

Arkwright, G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Arundel and Surrey,

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Earl of

Forman, T. S.

Ashley, Lord

Fox, S. L.

Baillie, Col.

Fremantle, rt.hn.Sir T.

Baird, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Balfour, J. M.

Gardner, J. D.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, T.

Gladstone, rt.hn. W. E.

Barneby, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Godson, R.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bateson, T.

Gore, M.

Beckett, W.

Gore, W. O.

Beresford, Major

Gore, W. R. O.

Boldero, H. G.

Goring, C.

Borthwick, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Botfield, B.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bowles, Admiral

Greene, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Grimsditch, T.

Broadley, H.

Grimston, Visct.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Grogan, E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Halford, Sir H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hamilton, J. H.

Bunbury, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Cardwell, E.

Henley, J. W.

Cartwright, W. R.

Henniker, Lord

Charteris, hon. F.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Chelsea, Visct.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Hervey, Lord A.

Christopher, R. A.

Hodson, F.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hodgson, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, hon. C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hope, A.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hope, G. W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Hornby, J.

Compton, H. C.

Houldsworth, T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hussey, T.

Courtenay, Lord

Ingestre, Visct.

Cresswell, B.

Irton, S.

Cripps, W.

James, Sir W.C.

Damer, hon. Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Darby, G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Davies, D. A. S.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Dawnay, hn. W. H.

Jones, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Kemble, H.

Dodd, G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Douglas, Sir H

Knight, H. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knight, F. W.

Douro, Marq. of

Lawson, A.

Dowdeswell, W.

Lefroy, A.

Drummond, H. H.

Lennox, Lord A.

Dugdale, W. S.

Leslie, C. P.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Lincoln, Earl of

East, J. B.

Lindsay, H. H.

Eastnor, Visct.

Lockhart, W.

Eaton, R. J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Egerton, Sir P.

Maclean, D.

Eliot, Lord

McNeill, D.

Emlyn, Visct.

Mahon, Visct.

Entwistle, W.

Mainwaring, T.

Escott, B.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Martin, C. W.

Feilden, W.

Masterman, J.

1308

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Morgan, O.

Shirley, E. J.

Mundy, E. M.

Sibthorp, Col.

Neeld, J.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Neeld, J.

Smyth, Sir H.

Neville, R.

Smollett, A.

Newdegate, C. N.

Somerset, Lord G.

Newport, Visct.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Stanley, Lord

Norreys, Lord

Stewart, J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Ossulston, Lord

Taylor, E.

Packe, C. W.

Tennant, J. E.

Palmer, R.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Palmer, G.

Thompson, Ald.

Patten, J. W.

Thornhill, G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Peel, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pennant, hn. Col.

Trollope, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Trotter, J.

Powell, Col.

Verner, Col.

Praed, W. T.

Vesey, hon. T.

Price, R.

Vivian, J. E.

Pringle, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Pusey, P.

Welby, G. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Williams, T. P.

Richards, R.

Wodehouse, E.

Rolleston, Col.

Wood, Col.

Round, C. G.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Round, J.

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

TELLERS.

Sanderson, R.

Young, J.

Sandon, Visct.

Baring, H.

BANK CHARTER—THE CURRENCY.
On the Order of the Day, for the House to go into Committee on the Bank Charter Bill,
Mr. Alderman Thompsonobserved, that the alterations and restrictions imposed upon the Bank of England, by the Bill before the House, were neither necessary nor equitable to the Bank itself. The Bank of England was in future to be limited to an issue of 14,000,000 l., whereas its capital consisted of 16,500,000 l., namely, 11,000,000 l. lent to the Government, 3,000,000 l. representing the value of the Bank Stock held by the proprietors, and 2,500,000 l. the amount of the reserved sum, commonly called "the rest." He was at a loss to conceive why, with a fixed and tangible capital of 16,500,000 l., the Bank should be limited to an issue of 14,000,000 l., seeing that it was at all times quite competent to support a circulation of 2,500,000 l. more, and, indeed, had a fair claim to this amount. He had originally understood the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to say, in introducing the measure that a discretionary power was to be lodged with the Government, in the persons of the

1309
First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Master of the Mint, enabling them to authorise the Bank to increase its issues to a certain extent in case of need, and he should have been perfectly satisfied if that power of extension had been limited to an issue of 2,500,000 l. But he had since unfortunately discovered, that no such safeguard had been provided, and that the right hon. Baronet had wholly omitted to give any such liberty to the Bank to increase its issues in cases of emergency. The Bank of England was placed in a most disadvantageous position with respect to the circulating medium and the standard of value. Throughout all Europe, and, indeed, throughout all the world, the standard of value and the universal circulating medium was silver, whereas the Bank, being obliged to pay its notes in gold was alternately subjected to violent fluctuations in the quantity of bullion contained in its coffers, and, in so far as the present Act was concerned, it would have a double effect upon the transactions of the Bank of England as a restrictive measure. It was said that the Bank of England could increase its issues under certain contingent circumstances: but how was that provision made by the Bill? If a country bank of issue failed for 90,000 l., the Bank of England would immediately increase its issues to the amount of 60,000 l. which would still leave a deficiency in the general circulating medium of 30,000 l. and, if this were to be of frequent occurrence, the consequences, both to trade and commerce, would be extremely inconvenient. The fears and prognostics of those who had already referred to the objections above stated were made light of; and it had been stated that the country could very well afford to see 4,000,000 l. of gold taken out of the general circulation so long as the Bank of England had 8,000,000 l. in its coffers; but he differed entirely from this opinion, and he must observe that he was not single in his sentiments upon this subject; at the same time, he felt it to be incumbent on him to observe, that although he had formed these opinions after an experience of seventeen years as a Bank director, he did not put them forward in that place in his capacity as connected with the Bank, but in the more general character of a Member of that House; nor did he desire it to be inferred in the most remote degree that his opinions represented those of the Court of Directors as a body.
Mr. W. Williamswas not surprised at
1310
the opinion put forth by the hon. Member opposite, considering he had been so long a Bank Director, nor did he consider his dissatisfaction at the measure before the House as anything extraordinary. It was to be expected that the hon. Member would object to any check being placed upon those exclusive privileges which had so often brought difficulty and distress upon the people of England. The desire of the hon. Member to extend the issue of Bank paper from 14,000,000 l. to 16,500,000 l., was quite natural; but the expectation was, he hoped, groundless; for the right hon. Baronet had stated, when the measure was first brought forward, his intention to adhere to the principles which he then laid down, and he relied on that determination. The right hon. Gentleman had, in accordance with his declaration in that speech, brought in a Bill, and had since expressed his determination to adhere to it without change. This measure would, he considered, carry out the principle of the Bill of 1819, and if it had accompanied that Bill it would have prevented those disastrous fluctuations in the value of money and property of every kind by the mismanagement of the paper currency, which had brought ruin, distrust, and misery, upon so large a portion of the people of this country. It was calculated that the stoppage by the Bank in 1797 sent 35,000,000 l. of coin in gold and silver out of this country. Again, at various periods when the Bank of England after a high issue of paper money had been compelled to contract its payments to save itself from difficulty, see the vast amount of bullion that had been lost. It was the excessive circulation of paper money by the Bank of England that had often generated speculation and high prices —prices advancing sometimes on articles important to the manufactures of this country nearly 100 per cent. The consequence had been, that we had imported beyond the extent of our exports, and the difference had been paid to the foreigner by the exportation of bullion. [The hon. Member gave a slight sketch of the variations in the quantity of bullion in the Bank coffers, and continued.] He believed that if we had favourable harvests for the next two or three years, this measure would give us a currency in bullion, and paper combined to a larger extent than had been the average since the year 1819. Was it not a remarkable fact, that

1311
this country, with all its commerce, had in circulation of gold and silver at the present moment not much more than 30,000,000 l., whereas in France the amount in circulation was upwards of 100,000,000 l.? He should wish to see introduced, changes in the Mint regulations, and full opportunity given to every merchant who imported gold of coining it at sums as low as 500 l. That would increase the circulation of bullion in this country. [The hon. Member again referred to the statistics of the paper issues to demonstrate that they had a great effect on prices, and that the Bank had been involved in difficulties by improper management, and concluded.] He would ask hon. Gentlemen to compare the circumstances of that period with those of the present time, and he thought they must then be convinced that a high or low circulation of paper money was not without its effect upon prices. He should make no further observation, but to say that he hoped the Government would adhere to the Bill, for which he gave them his thanks, and which he should support. He had expected a good measure from the right hon. Baronet, but he confessed he had not expected that the right hon. Baronet would have dealt with the subject in so comprehensive a manner.
Mr. Mastermansaid, that regarding the 14,000,000 l. which were to be issued by the Bank of England on securities, he could not help urging again on Her Majesty's Government, that which living, as he did, among bankers and merchants, he was continually pressed to urge, viz., the alarm with which they viewed that provision of the measure as it stood. It was apprehended that that part of the measure must lead to such a contraction of commercial accommodation as must be highly inconvenient. It seemed to him to be the most expedient course to give the Bank a power of expanding that part of the issues, and such a provision commercial men had expected would have formed part of the Bill. He would suggest to the right hon. Baronet the consideration whether such a principle might not be still introduced into the measure, to continue the power for three or five years only. There was one objection to taking three months average of the circulation of the country bankers, because, as was well known, the circulation varied in amount considerably in different months of the year; and thus such
1312
an average would operate injuriously to the interests of particular country banks. The four years' average was much preferable.
Mr. Muntzsaid, that after thirty years' blundering about the currency, it appeared that they were now about to be in Paradise. At least the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. W. Williams) had told them so, but he had not told them what profits would he made, how they should pay the taxes, or what rents were to be. Whatever the right hon. Baronet might say, the question resolved itself into this —whether they could support a high price of corn and a low value of money together. The right hon. Baronet the other evening had said that the value of the pound sterling had always remained the same; but that was not the case; it had varied extremely since the reign of Elizabeth. But as to the right hon. Baronet's comparison between a pound sterling and a foot measure, he could not understand it. People in this country had never bought by any other than the foot measure. The hon. Member read extracts from the Report of the Bullion Committee, to show that Mr. Horner entertained the same view as himself, that there must be a relative price between corn, gold, and silver. Hon. Gentlemen, now-a-days, however, seemed to think they could have a low price of money co-existent with a high price of corn. That was the only point on which he was at issue with the right hon. Baronet, except his attack on the country banks, which he could not approve. Foreign trade was now done for merely a nominal profit, and hardly any occurrence would bring it to a lower ebb than that which it had already reached. He was so opposed to the measure that he moved that the House do resolve itself into the said Committee this day six months.
Sir R. Peelsaid—I regret that in the present state of public business the hon. Member who has last addressed the House should think it necessary to endeavour thus to revive a discussion upon the principle of the measure, and in his attempt to raise that discussion I am not a little surprised to find that he should seem to expect that any one would now answer in detail objections to the measure; every one of which objections were answered five or six weeks ago. To argue this matter, therefore, with the hon. Member for Birmingham is quite out of the ques-

1313
tion, the more especially as it must be obvious to every one that his comprehension of the subject is wholly different from that of the public in general. [The right hon. Baronet referred at some length to the opinions of Mr. Muntz, as given before a Committee of the House and then continued.] The speech of the hon. Member might have had some meaning in the year 1818, but it does not apply to the state of things which exist in the year 1844, and the adoption of any such principle would be gross injustice towards all who are parties to this transaction. But, as I before said, I have no wish, I can have no wish, to prolong this discussion; my wish on the contrary is, that we should proceed immediately to discuss the clauses of this Bill. The House will not be surprised to learn that since the announcement of this measure several propositions have been laid before Her Majesty's Government. To all those we have given the fullest and most careful consideration; but we have declined to accede to any alteration that would be at all at variance with the principle of the Bill, and it would be a departure from the principle of the measure, if there were to be any addition to the issue upon security contemplated under this Bill, except in certain specified cases. If the Government, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend, the Member for Westmoreland, were to possess a discretionary power to increase the circulation, the pressure on them to bring that about, would at times be instant and extreme. After all, we must adhere to the principle laid down by Mr. Harman, in 1797, that the circulation of paper must depend upon the solvency of the issuing body. If a man possess land of the value of 1,000,000 l. sterling, and he were allowed by law to issue paper to that amount, it is needless to observe that to that amount it would be a solvent issue, and, I may add, that such an issue would be in conformity with the principle of the Bill. But one of the objects that we have in view is, that the paper circulation should conform itself to gold — that it should fluctuate like gold—and that by those means it should be made to represent a value equal to that of gold. As an objection to this Bill, and as a reason why it should be altered, we are told that the Bank of England is worth more than 14,000,000 l. —that it is worth 16,500,000 l. Now, suppose it was worth 25,000,000 l., is that
1314
any reason that we should go beyond the 14,000,000 l. which we have specified? The Bank may be worth 16,500,000 l., but that is not the question. We never assigned the sum of 14,000,000 l. as representing the capital of the Bank, nor did we fix on that amount after looking at the bullion in the Bank; but Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that they could not safely allow any greater issue than that of 14,000,000 l., and after the best consideration which they could bestow upon the subject they came to the conclusion that that sum must be their maximum. But then we were told that the Bank was worth 16,500,000 l., and that Government might safely be entrusted with the discretionary power of extending the issue to that amount if a necessity arose. If we were to possess such a power a month would not be allowed to elapse before we should be called upon to exercise it. It would be held that the test of the necessity was the legitimate demands of commerce—there would be an immediate press on the Government to extend the issue—we should be told "Here are good bills—these are legitimate demands —the parties are all solvent—this is not fictitious paper—what can be the objection to extending the issues in such a case." To such a proposition as would vest such a power in the Government I gave a decided negative. I said at once that such a proposition was an evident denial of the principle on which we were proceeding. To extend the issues to the full amount of capital possessed by the Bank was one proposition, and to give the Government that discretionary power to which I have been referring, was another; to neither of these could I consent. I shall now proceed briefly to state those modifications of the measure which we have thought it necessary to make, and which we conceive to be perfectly consistent with the principle of the Bill. When it was brought forward on the 6th of May, it was thought expedient to select some definite period by the issues in which to regulate the future issues of country and joint-stock banks, and for that purpose, we proposed to take the average of the last two years, or the last three years. We have not thought it expedient to adhere to the period of two years, because it did appear that that might include the lowest amount of country circulation. Independently of

1315
this, it was said that that period would not famish an amount equal to the maximum which would be required for future circulation; and it was apprehended that we should derange many transactions by fixing too low an average. Then it was suggested that we ought to take the average of the last five years, which would include the year 1839, and to this proposition we did not accede; neither to that proposition by which we were recommended to take a single day as the rule, nor that which would have us take four years or three; but, on the contrary, we think we have chosen an average which will fairly fulfil the intentions with which we set out, with as little as possible of public inconvenience. What we propose to do is to take the average of the twelve weeks which immediately preceded the announcement of the measure. There would have been a difficulty either in two years or in four years, if we attempted to apply that principle indiscriminately to all banks. Some banks might with considerable show of reason object to that; they might affirm it to be an unjust average, on the ground that it would include the month of May, 1843. A country banker might say that at that time there had been a great failure of a banking establishment in his neighbourhood; that in consequence of that occurrence he had been obliged greatly to increase his issues for the purpose of supplying the void which that failure created—that the transactions in which he then engaged were perfectly satisfactory to the commercial, manufacturing, and landed interests in his vicinity, but that, nevertheless, it had led to a great extension of the issues of his particular establishment; and, in a word, if we took the average of the last two years we should have been wrong to the extent of 30 per cent. Besides that, if we found one bank doing as I have described, we might find another which had been supplying its customers during the same period by means of Bank of England notes almost exclusively; and thus the average on the two years would never have answered our purpose. Upon the whole, then, we thought that two years would not do justice to all parties, and so we have resolved to take the twelve weeks antecedent to the 27th of April. This is as nearly as possible the three months preceding the announcement of the measure. This, I repeat, was the nearest
1316
approach that we could make towards giving universal satisfaction; for, let us do what we might, there would be some one found to say that the arrangement did not suit his views, and that the average would not be fair as regarded his transactions; for no general plan could be made for every set of particular circumstances. During the three months that we have chosen, prices were about the ordinary level in manufactures, and commerce was in a comparatively flourishing state. The month of April is included within the period, and so likewise is the month of February. The months on which these average issues will be taken are, as I have already stated, the months of February, March and April, and they will, as I think, present a fair test of the whole year. No doubt some one may be found who will tell us that he did more business in October and September than in the months that we have selected, but it must be obvious to the House that we could not frame a measure capable of suiting every individual bank. Upon the whole, then, I should say, that taking the average from the twelve weeks previous to the announcement of the measure will do justice, and interfere as little as possible with the intention and principle of the Bill. Representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government that some inconvenience might arise from compelling banks to confine their maximum of issue to one single week. I do not see that much inconvenience would arise from compelling a bank with no branches to confine its issue within one week; but with respect to a bank which has numerous branches, it is possible that such an one might be subjected to considerable inconvenience. All we require is, that the fair maximum of issues shall not be exceeded —that it shall be kept within certain limits. We propose, therefore, instead of confining the maximum to a week, to extend that period to a month. Supposing, for example, that the maximum of a bank should be 100,000 l., and that from transactions to be completed within the month,—suppose that within the month there should occur a fair, or something which had led in past years to an increased demand for accommodation—say to the amount of 106,000 l.,—in that case, provided the Bank will limit its issues in the first three weeks of that month to 98,000 l., and if in the last week the is-

1317
sues shall amount to 106,000 l., so that the total average of the monthly period does not still exceed 100,000 l., then in that case the Bank would not be subject to any penalty. That appears to me to be a just arrangement, more especially with respect to a bank which has branches. Then we do not propose that the account shall extend beyond the month. The average for each month must not exceed the maximum. Suppose there is a diminution in the issues within a given month; in that case, the Bank is not to be allowed in the month following to exceed the maximum of its issues in order to make up for the diminution in the preceding month. The Bill does not proceed to that extent; but we have reason to believe that it will prove exceedingly satisfactory to a great number of joint-stock banks and of private banks to extend the period from a week to a month. The only other point of the slightest importance, with respect to which Her Majesty's Government propose any modification, is to provide the period when this limitation of issue shall take place—which we think should be upon that day which, if I may say so, is the commencement of the year with joint-stock banks—the 10th of October. On that day their issues are renewed, and on the 10th of October next, therefore, we propose that the limitation shall commence. There is only one other point. At present there is a penalty for exceeding the issue of three times the amount of the excess committed. We propose, relying upon the good faith of the gentlemen who conduct country banks, that the penalty shall equal the amount of the excess; that is to say, those who exceed by 1,000 l. shall be liable to a penalty of 1,000 l. Now, after very mature consideration, these are the modifications in our proposal which we propose to make; we do not think that, in any degree, they endanger the principle of the measure, but that they are in themselves just and reasonable. I hope that we shall now proceed to consider the Bill in Committee, and, adverting to the proofs which Her Majesty's Government have shown to listen to modifications proposed for their adoption, that the House will not think that we are desirous to adhere to what we first proposed, when reasonable propositions are offered for our consideration. I trust that there will be little or no opposition to the progress of this Bill in Committee, and I proceed
1318
with the confident hope on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that this measure will continue to receive that cordial sanction and approbation of this House which is likely to have due weight and authority in the commercial world and throughout the country.
Mr. Humewas anxious to see the plan of the right hon. Baronet carried out. He wished to inquire, however, of the right hon. Baronet, whether be intended to provide gold to answer the paper issues of the banks of the United Kingdom as well as of the Bank of England. If so, he thought all restrictions might be removed, provided all notes were made convertible at the Bank. He wished the right hon. Baronet to repeal the legal tender clause, and to require every bank to retain a portion of gold to answer its own notes.
Sir R. Peelhad entertained strong prejudices in favour of the plan of the hon. Member who had just sat down. Supposing, that having adopted his principle, and that free competition in banking combined with immediate convertibility on demand would secure an excess in issue, he would immediately consent to repeal the legal tender clause; but he feared if country notes were made immediately convertible, that that result would not follow, and that there would still be a stock of gold here; that country bankers being willing to depend on their own paper until a time of pressure came, when they would ask for it, the Bank of England would still continue to be the source to come to for gold. Scotland was an example of this. Practically Scotch notes were immediately convertible; but did Scotland keep a large supply of gold? On the contrary, Scotland was quite ready to rely upon England for gold, which it trusted to get from London in case of an immediate demand for it. For these reasons he was desirous of adhering to the principle already acted upon in this matter.
Mr. Wallaceconcurred with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), and could not but think that the measure was much better suited to persons who had already well feathered their nests and had plenty of capital, than to people who were comparatively poor, and were striving to make their way. He believed we were on the eve of a bad harvest; and he feared that, combined with that circumstance, this

1319
measure would be severely felt by the poorer classes for some time to come.
Mr. Barnardsaid, as the Bank were to be called on to make advances to the Government upon Deficiency Bills, how was that diminution of the circulation to be made up when the dividends were payable?
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Member need not sell out under any apprehension that there would not be gold enough to pay the dividends. Besides that, his right hon. Friend had adopted a plan for equalizing the amount of the deficiency Bills at different periods; experience had shown that there was no ground for the apprehension entertained by the hon. Member.
Mr. Muntzsaid, the right hon. Baronet had talked about cheating and robbing. He did not know whether he meant to be personal. What he wanted to prevent was, that cheating and robbing which must exist where there was such a Corn Law as we had now, which restricted currency.
Sir W. Jameshad studied this question for a month, and had not yet been able to make up his mind, although the argument of the right hon. Baronet was so logically built up—syllogism on syllogism—that it was impossible to refute it. He feared that the mines of the world would not supply a sufficient quantity of gold if the principle of a metallic currency were fully carried out. The subject was so beset with difficulties to his mind that he should not vote at all.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 205; Noes 18: Majority 187.
[It seems sufficient to preserve a record of the Minority.]

List of the NOES.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Collins, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

D'Eyncourt,rt.hn.C.T.

Taylor, J. A.

Duncan, G.

Trollope, Sir J.

Gisborne, T.

Turner, E.

Hastie, A.

Wakley, T.

Henley, J. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Johnson, Gen.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Newdegate, C. N.

Wallace, R.

Scott, R.

Muntz, G. F.

House in Committee.
On the second Clause,
Mr. Newdegatesaid, that having on a previous occasion alluded to his estimate
1320
of the contraction of the Bank Issues, and having stated he would adduce this on Committee, he now wished to state that after examining Parliamentary Returns he found, speaking in round numbers, that on the average of the last twenty-three years of the Bank of England, since the Act of 1819, had—

Circulation

19,000,000

Deposits

9,000,000

Securities

22,900,000

Bullion

8,000,000

Surplus or rest

3,000,000

The right hon. Baronet assumed that the present amount of gold in the Bank would continue the same, and he based his issue accordingly on it—making a total issue of 30,000,000 l., and considers, that of this, 22,000,000 l. would be available for the active circulation of the Bank of England; but the present amount of bullion in the coffers of the Bank was nearly double that of the annual average for the last three-and twenty years, and as such being strictly an exceptional case he (Mr. Newdegate) argued that, to base the issue upon the assumption of its continuance was to place it on an unsafe foundation. The future position of the Bank in that respect might, with much more justice, be assumed at one-half of the present amount of bullion; and if that sum 8,000,000 l. were added to the 14,000,000 l. securities, the circulation would not practically be more than 15 or 16,000,000, though the total issue would be 22,000,000 l., a figure more than 8,000,000 l. below the average of the last twenty-three years, thus will the active circulation be diminished to an amount of between 3 and 4,000,000 l. less than the average of the twenty-three years, and be rendered totally insufficient for the ordinary exigencies of the country; this too, taken without making allowance for the extra amount, which must hereafter lie dormant in the Bank coffers. The prices of all produce would be directly affected by such a contraction, and agricultural produce more especially; and he had no doubt that they would come down 18 or 20 per cent., beginning to fall when the change began to operate, and progressively diminishing afterwards with the restricted circulation. The whole question turned, in fact, on the amount of bullion the country had to look for. He (Mr. Newdegate) saw no reason to agree with the assumption of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the amount was unlimited. On the contrary, although he

1321
believed the quantity in this country very great, he also believed that the sum in general circulation was limited. There was before the Committee a proof of the actual amount in circulation since 1819; and there were no grounds to show that the necessity for the future would be less than it had been for the past. On the contrary, there was every reason to assume that an increase in its amount would be requisite to provide for the wants of an increasing population, and an extended traffic. The restriction which the Bill imposed would thus act in an increasing ratio on prices; and the pressure which it was sure to cause upon all classes of producers would be most grievous on the poorest class, who had but their labour to barter against the fixed payments. The prospect of a bad harvest was staring the country in the face; the exchanges might turn against England as they did before, and so reduce indefinitely the amount of bullion in the Bank; for there is every reason to suppose that, as the high amount of bullion in the Bank is unprecedented, it will not so continue; and then in every successive year would be felt the depressing influence of the Bill before the House for restricting the circulation. The main object of the Measure was to prevent the Bank of England acting as a Bank of support, a function which it had discharged almost to the salvation of the country on more than one occasion. When the exchanges turned against England, the demand for gold was of two kinds—namely, the demand for exportation, and the demand caused by a panic. The action of the Bank in supporting credit and allaying panic has hitherto proceeded thus. When the exchanges turn against this country, and the bullion is withdrawn from the Bank in any great quantity, a feeling of insecurity in credit soon shows itself at home—first by the bankers collecting gold to meet the exigencies of a run; thus they co-operate with the foreigner in drawing bullion from the Bank of England. The Bank then restricts her issues, and the feeling of insecurity extends rapidly to the public; they again, through their Bankers, draw more gold. But prices fall, and the exchanges cease to be unfavourable—at all events are checked in their downward progress. Their resuming a direction favourable, however, to this country, is a matter of time, whilst the panic keeps up a continual drain upon the bullion of the Bank. This is a secondary action, and the Bank commences more liberal issues of her notes,
1322
because she sees the exchanges are improved, and wishes to re-assure the country— for thus the internal drain upon her coffers will be stayed. By this system, the Bank serves as an index of exchange to those who are not so capable of judging of the real condition and probable direction of the exchanges; they prevent the panic— continued, if not caused, by ignorance— from further increasing the evil of diminished bullion; for, of that evil, panic is often as much the cause as the consequence. It was, in his opinion, most unwise policy on the part of the Government to remove that guardian influence from commerce and labour in this country; for the time might still arrive, as it did before, when the circulation would be altogether inadequate to the wants of the country, by reason of the drain for bullion, and there are no means for remedying this afforded by the Bill before the Committee. He did not see how the circulation could be maintained at the average of the last twenty-three years, should the Bill come into operation in its present shape. He could not help concluding from all these circumstances, that the Bill had not been sufficiently considered before it was proposed; and he certainly was of opinion, that it was not at all thoroughly understood by hon. Members. He believed that the fluctuations in value would be more violent than heretofore, and the consequent depreciation of price more detrimental to the labouring classes. Having endeavoured to show the House the effect of contraction of the Currency, judging from the experience of past years, he must be permitted to add his condemnation of the Measure, which, with its stringent enactments, he believed to be wholly unadapted to the state of the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he felt it to be his duty, as several hon. Gentlemen on his side (Ministerial) of the House were strongly opposed to the Clause relating to issues by the Bank of England, to divide the House. That Clause was like ossifying the heart of the human frame, which, when any additional quantity of blood should be propelled through the veins, would inevitably result in the bursting of the smaller vessels. Such being his strong conviction, he felt it imperative upon him to take the sense of the House upon the Clause in question.
Mr. Darby(who spoke from under the gallery, and was almost wholly inaudible,)

1323
was understood to declare his inability to comprehend the nature of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Newdegatebegged to explain, that, from being unaccustomed to the forms of the House, he had omitted to conclude with the terms of his Amendment, which was, that the words "securities upon 14,000,000 l. be omitted, and that 22,000,000 l. be substituted, as the average of the last twenty-three years." The hon. Member subsequently explained, that the Returns from which he had quoted were chiefly derived from the Parliamentary Return, No. 580, which had been delivered to the Members in June, 1842. He certainly had believed that Bank Post Bills had been included, and so they must be in future similar Returns, and so be taken into account. My statement (continued the hon. Member) has proceeded on the same premises as that of the right hon. Baronet, who, in his speech of May 21, made the following statement with reference to the present condition of the Bank:—
"Take the case at present; the Bank is possessed of great amount of bullion—not less than 16,000,000 l. The banking department of the Bank of England is possessed of not less than 30,000,000 l. of Bank notes, 14,000,000 l. issued on securities, and 16,000,000 l. on bullion; a great proportion of these Bank-notes will necessarily lie dormant in the coffers of the banking department, because it is not possible that more than 22,000,000 l. can be made available for the supply of the legitimate demands of commerce."
The right hon. Baronet here calculates that about one-third of the total issue of notes will be dormant under the present system; if, therefore, the bullion, instead of remaining hereafter at the present amount, falls to anything like the average of what it has been in past years—that is, 8,000,000 l.—if the issues on securities made by the Bank, are absolutely limited to 14,000,000 l., instead of 22,900,000 l. the average of past years—and, if we deduct one-third for the amount of notes which will be dormant in the Bank, it will only leave 15,000,000 l. available for the purposes of commerce, with no extra allowance for rest or surplus, an amount 4,000,000 l. less than that which has hitherto been required for the natural commercial transactions of the country, as circulation of the Bank of England; and, if further we connect this with the fact, that the restriction of issue on securities is
1324
an absolute restriction, and connected also with the other restrictive provisions of the Bill, I do not think that I have overstated the amount of the contraction, when I estimated it at between 8 and 9,000,000 l., on a circulation of considerably less than 40,000,000 l., which, of late years, has been that of England and Wales. The probable contraction cannot, therefore, be estimated at much less than 20 per cent. in the whole. The right hon. Baronet observes, that during the first year of the period upon which I have taken the average annual issues of the Bank up to the present time, the Act of 1819 was not in full operation, this is true as far as it goes, for paper did rise absolutely to par with gold till 1821, but if you take the preceding year out of the calculation it will make an extremely slight difference in the result. The right hon. Baronet also observes, that the period since 1819 includes several years, during which our pound notes were in use. These notes were issued to meet contingencies, which I conceive we must anticipate as likely again to occur, and which must be met, if not by an issue of one-pound notes, by some relaxation of the Currency, of equivalent effect.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the point raised by this Amendment had been so often discussed, that it was really unnecessary for him to go over the subject again, or indeed to do more than express astonishment at the declaration of the hon. Gentleman, that the House was unprepared to decide a question which, in his judgment, had been so insufficiently considered. The hon. Gentleman seemed to entertain most erroneous views of the effect of this provision. If the Bill passed there was really nothing in it to preclude the Bank from doing all that the hon. Member desired, or even for issuing 28,000,000 l. or 30,000,000 l. of its currency, if it could find profitable employment for it. The Bill gave the Bank the power of issuing 14,000,000 l. based upon securities, and 16,000,000 l. based upon gold, and they had every reason to believe that if the Bill passed the circulation of Bank paper would not be confined to 14,000,000 l., as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, but would extend to 22,000,000 l. or 24,000,000 l., as he desired. The difference between them was not as to the amount the Bank should issue, but as to the basis upon which these issues should

1325
rest. If the Bank were to possess the power the hon. Member desired to give it, and if it exercised that power of issuing upon securities without having any gold basis to meet the issue, why the probabilities were that the Bank would be speedily ruined. In truth, the whole speech of the hon. Gentleman, if rightly understood, was not a speech against this measure so much as a speech against the metallic system. He thought, however, that the House would not be inclined to go with the hon. Gentleman in his desire to restore a currency without a basis, which in reality only created fictitious value, and when the bubble burst spread ruin over the country and deranged all commercial transactions. In his endeavour to support this question, the hon. Member had made use of some very erroneous calculations. First, the hon. Gentleman had included in his estimate of the Bank circulation all the Bank post bills issued by the Bank, and, secondly, that he had taken those years during which the Bank issued one pound notes. These were important errors; but he would not further occupy their time in meeting those objections. He thought the great benefit to be derived from the measure, was the prevention of those rapid contractions of the currency which they had experienced.
Mr. Kemblebelieved that one beneficial effect of the Government Bill would be to prevent wild speculations in foreign railways. He did not mean to say that the present Bill would put an end to all speculation; nor was such a result desirable, for there ought to exist some moderate and wholesome speculation, though not those dreadful alternations of prosperity and distress which had existed. He thought the Bill calculated to produce more steadiness than had prevailed for a long period of time, and therefore it was entitled to the support of the House. At the same time, as the present was a great experiment, it would probably have been more satisfactory to the public if the right hon. Baronet had adhered to his original proposal, by which he retained to the Government the power of increasing the circulation to a limited extent. He at least had understood the right hon. Baronet so to have expressed himself.
Mr. C. Woodcould undertake to say that the only circumstance under which the right hon. Baronet had contemplated the exercise of such a power as that alluded
1326
to by the hon. Member was the withdrawal of country notes from circulation, when, with the sanction of the Government, the notes of the Bank of England might, in a certain proportion, be substituted. He thought, however, all discussion should be reserved on this point until they reached a subsequent Clause of the Bill. He supported the Government proposition, and should vote against the Amendment.
Mr. Newdegatethen proceeded to withdraw his Motion, in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Halifax; and said that, in what he had proposed, his object had been, that the power of the Bank to issue on securities, should not be limited to any amount of securities less than that upon which they (the Bank) had issued on the annual average of the last twenty-three years.
Amendment withdrawn, and the Clause as amended, was agreed to, as were also Clauses 3 and 4.
House resumed Committee to sit again.
The House adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. County Rates, etc.; County Coroners.
2a. Marriages Celebration; New South Wales, etc. Government.
3a. and passed:—Lecturers and Parish Clerks.
Private.—1a Rochdale Improvement.
Reported.— Preston and Wyre Docks; European Life Insurance Company; Slamannan Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
3a. and passed: — Sir J. J. R. Mackenzie's (Scatwell) Estate; Mackenzie's (Seaforth) Estate; Liverpool Fire Prevention; South Eastern Railway; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates; Canterbury Pavement; Lakenheath Drainage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Wareham, and Isle of
1242
Purbeck, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Doncaster, and 3 other places, against the Union of St Asaph and Bangor.—From Inch, and Burt, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.

RAJAH OF SATTARA.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he had a Petition to present, which was signed by several Proprietors of East-India Stock, and others connected with our East-Indian possessions, and which stated that the Petitioners believed that injustice had been done to the Rajah of Sattara, and prayed their Lordships that they would interfere to obtain justice, though tardy, for his Highness. It might be in their Lordships' recollection, that some time ago, he (Lord Beaumont) presented a Petition to their Lordships, signed by his Highness, and dated from his prison at Benares, in which he complained that he had not been fairly treated as regarded the trial in which he was concerned—that he had not been allowed to attend at the early part of the proceedings—that when he applied for a copy of the evidence, it was given in languages which he did not understand, for part of it was in English and part of it in Hindostanee, whereas the Mahratta language was the only language with which he was acquainted perfectly. It was also alleged in that Petition, that the proceedings against his Highness rested on the evidence of witnesses who were wholly unworthy of credence; and he also stated that, before he was allowed an opportunity of answering that evidence, he was called upon to sign a document to the effect of acknowledging his guilt, and without that acknowledgment he would not be allowed possession of the musnid. The papers which contained an official account of all the proceedings in this case had been laid before the House of Commons, and those who took an interest in the subject, and who examined them, were convinced that the Rajah of Sattara had been unjustly treated, and ought to be afforded an opportunity of obtaining redress—that reliance had been placed upon the evidence of witnesses whose testimony he could have proved to be unworthy of credence, and which evidence he was still ready, if afforded the opportunity, to prove was unworthy of belief. Indeed an impression seemed to have been upon the mind of Sir R. Grant, when he was Governor of Bombay at the time of those proceedings, and of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Auckland), that the

1243
evidence was not sufficient to sanction the decision which had been come to with respect to him; and he should show that to their Lordships by reading for them two or three extracts. The noble Lord then read the following extracts:—
Extract from Governor Grant's Minute, dated May 5, 1838:—
"With regard to the letters to Don Manuel, 'there is not a single instance proved of any letter having actually been written at Sattara with the cognizance of the Rajah.'
(Signed) "R. GRANT."
Extract from letter of W.H. Macnaghten, Esq., Secretary to Government of India, to W. H. Wathen, Esq., Secretary to Government of Bombay, October 2, 1837:—
"The Governor-General in Council could not but regard such plots (the Goa) to be too extravagant to be entertained for a moment by any person in his senses, while it appears that the Rajah is by no means deficient in under-standing. In the hopelessness that all further evidence will be otherwise than inconclusive, and looking to the utmost degree of criminality which in any view of the testimony before the Commission, may be regarded as clearly and absolutely established, looking, too, to the interval which has since elapsed in inquiries leading to no further definite and important disclosures, his Lordship in Council would most gladly find that the right honourable the Governor in Council is disposed to concur with him in the opinion, and would close the proceedings; apprising the Rajah that, though several suspicious circumstances regarding His Highness have been elicited during the progress of the inquiry, yet the British Government is unwilling, without the clearest proof of guilt, to condemn any of its allies; and that the right honourable the Governor in Council is therefore pleased to close the proceedings with the expression of his hope that the Rajah will so conduct himself in future as to avoid the predicament in which he has recently been placed."
W. H. Macnaghten to W. H. Wathen, Oct. 16,1837:—
"The proceedings reported in the communications new acknowledged are not, I am
1244
desired to state, such as to meet the approbation of his Lordship in Council. That the Rajah of Sattara, forgetful of all former obligations, and nettled by an alleged grievance, is disaffected to the British Government, and that he has been led by designing people, enemies either to him or the British Government, into acts intended to be injurious to that government, may be conceded; but the result of the late proceedings of the right honourable the Governor in Council has, I am desired to add, tended rather to weaken than to strengthen the case against him, for they either prove the extent of falsehood which is mingled with these accusations, or the imbecility with which the Rajah is entertaining projects of so wild a description. The Governor General in Council will look with some anxiety, though under the circumstances, not without suspicion, to any further confession which may be made by Govind Row, as tending to weaken or confirm the original charge adduced against the Rajah, or any of his family, of attempting to seduce our sepoys from their allegiance; and he is of opinion that whatever the Rajah of Sattara may have further to state in reply to those charges, should be fairly taken into consideration before any measures adverse to his Highness can be taken upon the proceedings already held."
Extract from the last Minute recorded by the Right Honourable the Governor of Bombay, dated 31st May, 1838:—
"The Rajah has not been told of the evidence taken by Colonel Ovans, and Undoubtedly he has a right to be heard. I never meant otherwise.
(Signed) "R. GRANT."
Declaration of Don Miguel:—
"I consider it necessary, for the advancement of justice, and for my own honour, to declare that during the whole time I governed the Portuguese possessions in India, I never had any correspondence on political subjects with the said Rajah of Sattara, and whatever documents have appeared on that subject are false."
It was evident from those extracts which he had read, that Lord Auckland and Sir R. Grant were desirous that the Rajah should be fairly and justly treated, and

1245
that an opportunity should be afforded to him of vindicating his character and disproving the evidence which had been brought against him. Since the papers upon the subject of the charges against the Rajah had been laid before the House of Commons, many persons had become impressed with a belief that he had been unjustly treated, who were previously of a different opinion, and he hoped their Lordships would, under these circumstances, see the propriety of doing justice to him. It was of more importance than ever to do justice to him at this moment— it was most important that the Board of Control should adopt a course which would have the effect of impressing the native princes with a sense of the justice of the proceedings adopted with respect to the Rajah of Sattara, and that course would be to afford him an opportunity of establishing his innocence, if he could, and failing to do that, his guilt might be clearly proved. He, therefore, would call on the noble Earl at the head of the Board of Control, to grant such a full and deliberate investigation as would enable the Rajah to vindicate his character, if he were innocent. He did not mean to say anything of the Rajah's restoration; that was a question into which it was not his intention to go: but if he were induced to do so, he might be able to show that others were more culpable than the Rajah, and that even if the evidence were true, his brother ought not to have been raised to the musnid instead of him, as that evidence would affect both of them: He might go further into the case, if he thought it necessary; he might describe at greater length the character of the evidence which had been brought against the Rajah, he might show that part of the evidence consisted of papers taken from a prostitute, who received 400 rupees, and that such were the means which were used to convict him of a charge which was absurd and ridiculous. He had now to present the petition, and to ask the noble Earl, the President of the Board of Control, if he would have the kindness to state whether or not he would afford to the Rajah an opportunity of disapproving the evidence which had been brought against them.
The Earl of Riponsaid, he should state very shortly in answer to the noble Lord the grounds on which he did not
1246
think it expedient or right that any such investigation as he had requested, should take place. It was not his intention to recommend to the Court of Directors that the subject should be again entered into; for he believed that such a course would be attended with the greatest possible mischief and inconvenience, and would have a tendency, so far as it went, to shake the just authority and power of the East-India Company in their possessions in India. It was not a matter of recent origin, as would be seen by the fact that some of the documents referred to by the noble Lord, were dated so far back as 1837. It had been the subject of repeated, most deliberate, and most disinterested consideration by a great variety of authorities to whom the consideration of it had been referred, and who were peculiarly competent to decide it. One of the individuals who was a party to the proceedings against the Rajah, was the late Sir R. Grant; at least, he had a very strong opinion on the subject at the time he was Governor of Bombay; and finally, the decision was confirmed after the most extensive investigation by Sir J. Carnac, who succeeded Sir R. Grant in the Bombay Government. His noble Friend, the Governor General of India (the Earl of Auckland) a most perfectly disinterested authority, who could have no earthly motive, and whose very nature precluded the supposition of any motive to perpetuate an injustice, and whose first impressions led him to hesitate as to some of the facts stated was finally, after the most deliberate consideration, convinced that the case was made out against the Rajah, and that his deposition was an act of justice. That decision on the part of the Governor General of India confirming the subordinate Government of Bombay, was subsequently reviewed by Sir J. C. Hob-house, and confirmed by the Court of Directors. It had been brought before a Court of Proprietors, and had been approved of there. When the late Lord Fitzgerald was President of the Board of Control, the case was again brought forward—for whenever a change took place in such an office, the individual coming in was sure to be called on to revise Some previous decisions, and to be told, they were unjust and improper, and this course had been adopted when Lord Fitzgerald came into that office—Lord Fitzgerald

1247
looked into the case, and had not thought proper to submit the decision of previous authorities to revision. Not long after he (the Earl of Ripon) was appointed to the office which he now held, he was requested to look into it. It was then new to him, and he felt it his duty to look through the papers, which he did, and such was their extent, that if he went fully into them, he should detain their Lordships until tomorrow morning, for they were the most voluminous papers he had ever been called on to look over. He had examined the portions of them which were most important to the purpose; and from what he had been able to learn from that investigation, he did not think that there was anything in the case which would justify him in recommending a reconsideration of it, and he could not, therefore, give any instruction on the subject.
Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

ST. ASAPH AND BANGOR DIOCESES BILL.
House in Committee.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships, and particularly of the noble Duke opposite, to a subject which was of some importance, although it was a point of form. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the Bill was before them in 1843, and it was then understood by their Lordships that when it was next brought forward, the consent of Her Majesty would be obtained for proceeding with it. This Bill affected the rights and patronage of the Crown; and, being of that nature, the noble Duke last year expressed his opinion that it would be impossible to proceed finally with the Bill without having the consent of the Crown. He wished, therefore, to ask the noble Duke opposite, if the consent of the Crown had been obtained for proceeding with the Bill?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he could inform the noble Lord and the House that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to give consent to the Bill. He did when the measure was before them, in a former Session of Parliament, suggest that it would be expedient and proper to obtain the consent of the Crown before proceeding with the Bill; but as the noble Lord says it is not necessary that the consent of the Crown should be obtained at any particular stage of the Bill, he should
1248
have no objection to proceed with the Bill in Committee.
Lord Campbellwas desirous to know if it were the intention of the Government to allow the Bill to pass into a law.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not mean to offer any opposition to the Motion of the noble Earl for going into Committee, or to making any alterations in Committee which he thought proper. If he should be authorized to give the consent of the Crown, he should do so; but at present his answer was, that he had not the authority of Her Majesty to signify her consent to the Bill.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that nothing could be more courteous or more convenient than to enable the noble Earl to go on with his Bill in order that he might make any alterations which he thought proper before the decision of the House upon it; and with that view he hoped their Lordships would not think it an intrusion if he said a few words upon it at that stage. The first Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on the subject was made in March 1835, and recommended a consolidation of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, and the creation of a Bishopric in Manchester. But so far were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when they presented the first Report from contemplating the measure which had now become the law of the land, that they recommended one of an entirely different nature. He contemplated a union of the Sees, and the creation of the new See at Manchester, it was true;—but by the second Report, and the legislation founded on it, not only were these Bishoprics consolidated, but another step was taken by the transfer of a certain amount of ecclesiastical revenue derived from the principality of Wales for the purpose of endowing the intended Bishopric of Manchester. Whatever differences of opinion might exist as to other parts of the question, all noble Lords concurred in the obligation and the necessity of creating additional episcopal superintendence for the diocese of Manchester. For the attainment of that object it had been considered necessary to consolidate the two Welsh Bishoprics, and to tranfer the revenues of the principality of North Wales to the endowment of the See of Manchester. Now it was to this second proposition he wished to call their Lordships' attention. He wished to re-

1249
mind their Lordships that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not at the time the proposition was made aware of the fact which had since been brought under their Lordships' notice in the last Session, and more distinctly in the present Session, by a right rev. Prelate, namely, that there would be a surplus of episcopal revenues, out of which the new Bishopric of Manchester might be advantageously and fittingly endowed without diverting from the clergy of the principality of Wales any of those endowments to which by law they were entitled. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners did not then see any other means by which the object could be attained; but it had since been discovered that fifteen dioceses which had been examined into would yield a surplus of 8,000 l. a-year, and there was no doubt that further investigation respecting the remaining dioceses would show an available surplus, at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, fully equal, at least, to the endowment of the Bishopric of Manchester. He maintained, therefore, that although they had the right absolutely, as the guardians of the religious instruction of the country and of the endowment of the parochial clergy, yet that it would be unchristian to exercise that right—that it would be unjust in the highest degree to divest the principality of Wales of its revenues for the purpose of bestowing them on Manchester. On behalf of the parochial clergy of Wales, he would show their Lordships that it was their duty to apply them in a different way from what his noble Friend proposed. The income assigned to the united Bishopric was .5,000 l., so that there remained about 4,700 l. per annum balance of the former income of the two Bishoprics. The greater portion of this amount was made up of the tithes paid by a population, very many of whose Ministers, it was matter of universal complaint, were most inadequately remunerated, though the appropriation of the tithes thus abstracted from them would place them in a position of due comfort and respectability. In the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, recommending the union of the Sees, it was made a feature that the balance thus arising could most advantageously be applied to increasing the incomes of the poorer clergy. True, it had been since thought that it would be necessary to apply this fund to endow the
1250
Bishopric of Manchester; but this necessity was now superseded, and there was more reason why the amount should be applied to increase the incomes of the poor vicars in the north of Wales, in the way that common justice and the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners dictated. Sure he was, that the population of this district would feel that the true interests of the Church would be better consulted by more fitly remunerating the clergy, than by giving additional Bishops to North Wales. The noble Duke suggested that the House could not legislate upon that matter; if so, this was an argument also against the Bill which they were about to legislate upon. He (Lord Monteagle) trusted that the House would abide by the laws which it had enacted, or it might be opening a door to some very mischievous inferences, to some dangerous arguments. He might mention the case of one parish in Denbighshire, that of Abigill, whose population was 2,500, occupying a district of not less than 10,000 acres, yet there was not one church for all this large and widespread population, and, moreover, the tithes resulting from it went, not into the pockets of the clergy, not into the pockets of the Bishops, but into the pockets of certain persons who had received a lease of them from a former Bishop their relative. This was a position of things which certainly required to be dealt with efficiently, but it was an abuse which these-verance of the Bishopric would in no way remedy. In the same way, there were in Flint and Denbighshire, three other parishes, whose tithes, amounting to 1,770 l., were leased to the relatives of former Bishops, leaving but an inconsiderable sum to the present Bishop. In the whole dioceses of St. Asaph and Bangor. the number of Benefices, amid a population of 350,711, was 258, of which no fewer than 113 were under 200 l. a year. The total revenues of the church in that diocese amounted to 83,964 l. of which 18,324 l. was appropriated to the support of the Bishoprics, cathedral dignitaries, and to sinecures; leaving 65,635 l. for the parochial benefices. The united incomes of thirteen sinecures in St. Asaph diocese alone, amounted to upwards of 4,000 l. per annum. The tithes of thirty-eight parishes were wholly or in part appropriated to the Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor, which parishes contained a popu-

1251
lation of 53,062—more than one-seventh of the whole population of North Wales. Again, take the case of the Isle of Anglesey. The county of Anglesey contained seventy-eight parishes, with a population of 50,000; there were seventy-eight churches and chapels in which divine service was performed, and there were only fifty clergymen appointed to officiate in these seventy-eight churches. The consequence, as stated by competent authorities was, that there were about thirty cases in which two churches were served by one individual; nay, there were cases in which three churches were consigned to the care of one clergyman; in a few churches divine service was performed on alternate Sundays only, and scarcely fifteen out of the seventy-eight churches, had two services performed in them on the Sabbath. The tithes of eight parishes with a population of about 12,000, or one-fourth of the whole island, with eight churches, were annexed to the Bishopric of Bangor: the annual value of the tithes was 2,215 l. Four curates performed the duties in these parishes, and received from the Bishop 582 l. So again, the extensive district of Towyn in Merionethshire, including four parishes, with an area of forty-seven square miles, and a population of 4,651 souls, was annexed to the See of Lichfield and Coventry, and two-thirds of the tithes of the parish of Carnarvon, with a population of 7,642 belonged to the Bishopric of Chester. In fact, while the population of the diocese of Bangor amounted to 153,344 souls, 38,006 souls (being about one-fourth of the whole number) were residents in parishes of which the tithes were respectively appropriated to the Bishoprics of Bangor, the Bishoprics of Lichfield and Chester, and two colleges at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge—while the united income paid to the resident clergy of those parishes amounted only to 3,057 l. per annum. This was a state of things which ought certainly no longer to continue, and he trusted that their Lordships would see the propriety of taking immediate steps to make the property of the Church in North Wales subservient in its just proportions to the due maintenance of that working clergy which had so long been deprived of it. It had been said, let only one of the proposed two Bishops have a seat in their Lordships' House, but this appeared to him to be a proposition fraught with much danger. He had
1252
himself indeed, heard several warm friends of the Church say, that after all, perhaps it would be better were some of the Bishops permitted to devote the whole of their time to their spiritual charge; but it seemed to him that were the question once raised whether any of the Bishops might not advantageously be relieved, as the phrase was, from their Parliamentary duties, consequences of a dangerous and unconstitutional nature might very probably be apprehended; for when he heard persons express a desire to withdraw the Church from all connection with the State, and propose that it should secede from secular duties, it always appeared to him that there was another proposition behind the ostensible one, a proposition, namely, an intention to place the Church above the State; and this was a proposition which he should ever determinately oppose on constitutional grounds, and more especially, for the safety of the Church itself. The more the Church and State were mixed up together—the more the Bishops, the more the clergy at large were taught to consider themselves as Members of the community, and to perform their equal share of its civil functions, subordinately only to their own peculiar duties—the better for the Church; and, on the other hand, most injurious and dangerous would it be for any party to attempt to set up the Church as a separate body, distinct from, apart from the State—and, in the next step, above the State, by reason of its sacred functions.
The Earl of Powissaid, that he had felt it to be his duty previously to the introduction of the Bill, to communicate with his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and since the second reading, he had further communicated with the noble Duke on the subject of the Royal consent being given to the measure, and that the noble Duke had informed him that it was not his intention to oppose the progress of the Bill unless material alterations were made in it when in Committee; but that he would take an opportunity of expressing the intentions of the Crown at a future stage. With respect to the argument of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) who had just sat down, he did not think that it was fairly introduced by him upon the measure at present before the House. He (Lord Monteagle) objected to the income of the Bishops of North Wales arising from tithes. Such was, more or less, in

1253
almost every diocese the source from which a considerable part of episcopal incomes was derived. But the objection of his noble Friend came whimsically from him who had been himself, if his recollection was correct, in office, and a Commissioner when the Act passed which transferred these incomes from the Bishops of North Wales to the Episcopal Fund. His noble Friend objected to this proceeding as altering a Statute lately enacted. An Act would be equally necessary to repeal the Act referred to, and to apply the surplus episcopal income as advised by his noble Friend; and redeem it from the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When the tithes were in the hands of their own Bishops, these revenues found their way back to the Principality, but it would be a very different thing when they were in the hands of an Ecclesiastical Corporation from whom it would be idle to expect any return of income. In parishes with which he (Lord Powis) was much connected, a large portion of the tithes were taken away by a college at Oxford, and he did not wish to see such means of disposing of the tithes of the parishes of North Wales increased. If his noble Friend intended to alter this state of things did he intend to limit his alterations to the episcopal tithe-holders of North Wales alone, or to extend it to the Sees of Lichfield and Chester, and other collegiate foundations which derive their income from North Wales tithes. If the evil was to be remedied, let it be met upon its own merits, and not confined to the Principality alone, but extended to the whole country, to England as well as to North Wales. Though such a reform might be very desirable, it would be difficult to carry it into execution, and his noble Friend was too well acquainted with Parliamentary practice not to know that to introduce his recommendations into the present Bill would be tantamount to ensuring its rejection in the other House of Parliament. Its appearance there, the Bill having assumed the character of a money Bill, would be to secure its being thrown upon the floor as interfering with the privileges of the House of Commons. During the discussion respecting the two Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, there never had been an occasion (and he said it to the honour of the Clergy of both Dioceses) in which individual and pecuniary interests had less operated upon the Clergy, or been put forward by them; and he was convinced that if application were made to their indivi-
1254
dual interests, and they were told that they would derive pecuniary benefit from the destruction of one of the Bishoprics, one and all would openly and directly declare, that whatever inconvenience poverty entailed upon them, they would rather continue to suffer that inconvenience, than be made the excuse for inflicting on North Wales the serious evil of diminishing the number of her Sees and thereby of depriving the country of the benefit of episcopal superintendence. He hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass the Committee, and he would only say, with regard to the recommendations and wishes of the noble Lord, that if he would introduce a measure for relieving the Principality from any existing grievances no man would be more ready to enter into the consideration of it than himself.
The Bishop of Bangorwished to set the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) right as to one matter, respecting which he laboured under a mistake. He had represented the tithes as having been abstracted from the local clergy in order to make part of the revenues of the Bishops. This was a mistake. They were tithes anciently appropriated just like other impropriate tithes; they had not been taken away from the local clergy; they were ancient appropriations belonging to the archdeaconries of Anglesea and Bangor, and were attached to the Sees they at present belonged to by Act of Parliament. In England tithes had been similarly appropriated and let on beneficial leases. The tithes in question were never let, but the Bishop received them just as a lay impropriator received them. With respect to this Bill, he knew that the clergy throughout Wales was almost unanimous in opinion that the Bishoprics should be preserved, and that it was the general wish of the inhabitants of the two dioceses.
The Bishop of Salisburythought that some parts of the speech of the noble Lord opposite deserved consideration. But he would remind the House that the recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which he had been a member, had been given ten years ago, but had not yet been acted upon. He agreed with the noble Lord that a Bishop of Manchester was much wanted, but if such a Bishopric were so necessary, could not the Government, with the co-operation of the Houses of Parliament, find means to procure it? In the progress of years, new divisions of

1255
the dioceses would always be wanted, but the want of new Bishops formed no ground for the destruction of old Bishoprics. He trusted that their Lordships would pass the present measure, and that whatever question might incidentally arise upon the subject of tithes, in connection with it, they would not allow those difficulties to interfere with its success.
The Bishop of Norwichcould give his testimony that throughout Anglesea and North Wales, there was a loud and general complaint of the unjust appropriation of the tithes, and of their alienation from the support of the local clergy: and he felt assured that his right rev. Brother must be deeply distressed at receiving such tithes. The feeling of the principality on the subject was so decided that he (the Bishop of Norwich) believed that a great part of the dissent which prevailed there was attributable to the alienation of tithes from the Clergy. There could not be a more objectionable mode of deriving an income than when it was derived from the tithes of a parish which you are conscious ought to be paid to the parish clergyman. He was sure his right rev. Brother must feel, as he (the Bishop of Norwich) should assuredly do under similar circumstances, some hesitation in calling to account pluralists and sinecurists within his diocese, knowing that they might turn round and say that, in his own case, the tithes of so many parishes went to swell the income of his See. He rejoiced at the notice which this subject had received, for he saw in it the sure prospect of justice to the clergy of the diocese in question. At the same time he looked forward to the establishment of a Bishopric in Manchester. Look at its population. He was surprised, after the recommendation of the Commissioners that the wealth of Manchester had not come forward with a voluntary tender of an amount sufficient to endow a Bishopric. It would not be an item worthy of consideration compared with the vast wealth of that town. But, if they did not come forward, as he thought they ought to do, there was a resource of 10,000 l., which might be appropriated to the purpose of establishing a Bishopric in Manchester. A right rev. Friend near him intimated that it was not so; he hoped, however, that he was wrong: at all events, he should look forward from the debate of that evening to a revival of religion in Wales, and to the prospect of the clergy of
1256
North Wales again possessing their rights.
The Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

BROTHELS, &C, SUPPRESSION BILL.
The Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill, having been read,
Earl Fitzhardingesaid, he wished to make a few observations before the House went into Committee on this Bill. When it was referred to a Select Committee of that House, he had the honour of being a member of that Committee; but he did not long continue so, for he withdrew, thinking that the Committee were not pursuing a proper course; he would—
"—nothing extenuate,
Or aught set down in malice."
but he could not help saying that he thought the Committee pursued a wrong course, when they refused to go into evidence on the subject. He divided the Committee on the subject, and they thought otherwise; but he thought it desirable that they should have full information before they proceeded to pass an Act which contained some very stringent clauses—not that he was one of those who gave way to morbid feelings upon the punishment of criminals. He did not fear the effect of legislative enactments to check crime, if they legislated upon such subjects on sure grounds. He proposed no other test than that which he would have required himself, viz., he would have inquired what prohibitory clauses had been put into leases to prevent the evils complained of. On his own property, he had no prohibitory clauses in his leases, but then there were no brothels. On the property of the Marquess of Westminster, prohibitory clauses had been introduced; on the property of the late Duke of Dorset they had also been introduced. Now, he held in his hand the copy of the prohibitory clause in a lease of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, taken from a lease in 1841; but there was no prohibitory clause against brothels. Other nuisances were prohibited, such as the making of tallow and glue, but not brothels. He had also a copy of the prohibitory clause in leases of the property of a most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He did not know whether the right bank of the river was defiled by the same im-

1257
purities as the left bank, but he did not find that brothels were amongst the nuisances forbidden. But he would take no unfair advantage. After it was decided that no evidence should be called, he directed his agent to call on Mr. Vincent, the agent of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, to inquire if there were prohibitory clauses in their leases against brothels, and the answer which had been given was, that in some of the leases the prohibitory clause against brothels was inserted, but in others it was not, that it was not the practice to insert in ancient leases, but only in the modern. His agent was referred for further information to the Bishop of Gloucester. Now, it was said in the Committee, and it had been also said elsewhere, that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but he had not made any accusation at all—he knew nothing of them—he wanted to know something, and that was the reason why he moved for evidence; he told them when the accusation was made, and he knew nothing of it himself. If this subject was fit for legislation, it was necessarily fit for examination. If they would look into a sewer they must expect to find a certain scent; and he must say that he thought they had been rather too hasty in their legislation. It was said that he had made an accusation against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; but he would repeat that he had not done so. He would, however, now make an accusation against them, and he would say that the brothels within two minutes' walk of that House, on their property were still extant, and he would give his authority to their Lordships. [The noble Earl then mentioned several houses and streets which were notorious.] He had no great reason to doubt the accuracy of this information; for it was given to him, not by any schismatic or anonymous writer in a newspaper, but by the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret's. They might legislate on the subject if they pleased, and he would not oppose their going into Committee upon the Bill before the House; but if the statement of Mr. Rogers, the vestry clerk, were true, he thought they were rather premature in legislating on this matter. He would beg to call their Lordships' attention to the third Clause in the Bill:
"And be it enacted, that any person who shall knowingly participate, directly or indi-
1258
rectly, in the profits arising from the keeping of any brothel, or who shall on any pretence directly share or become a partner with any prostitute in the wages of her prostitution, shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished in the same manner in all respects as hereinbefore authorized with reference to the keepers of brothels."
After what he had stated did anybody mean to say that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster were ignorant of all this? Did they not then come within this very Clause? If their Lordships legislated at all, let them legislate fairly. Let them not attack consequences without examining first into causes. Let them not satisfy themselves with lopping off' twigs, but let them lay the axe re the root of the evil. If they passed that Bill, knowing that the Dean and Chapter had been breathing the air of prostitution, and sharing the very wages of public infamy, he would tell them that they would not deal out even-handed justice unless they brought in a Bill of pains and penalties against the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.
The Bishop of Gloucestersaid, he was sure that their Lordships would lend an ear to a member of a body against whom there had been dealt out very large, loud, and he must say, intolerable accusations. From the tone and manner of the noble Earl it appeared that his temper had been greatly moved by what had passed the other night. He (the Bishop of Gloucester) did then complain, as he might now, that he had received no notice of the intention of the noble Earl, nor had any person connected with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster; otherwise he should have been provided with those details in a manner fitted to he laid before their Lordships. At that time, however, he could only state everything he knew, or had heard, or could recollect upon the subject; which was, that two years ago it had been communicated to him, for the first time in his life, that there stood upon the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in the Almonry houses of ill-fame, and he mentioned the matter to the proper authority immediately, urging that steps should be taken at once for the removal of that nuisance, which he saw was so discreditable to a religious and learned body. Their Lordships would recollect that he also stated that all the property was under leases of forty years, and their Lordships were well aware that during the currency of those leases it was impossible for the

1259
Dean and Chapter to take steps against the possessors, provided the conditions of the leases were not infringed. He had heard with satisfaction that a resolution had been taken long ago that those leases should not be renewed, and that they were in course of expiration. It was right to say for himself that, though be had been for many years a member of the body, he had never taken any part in the management of the property belonging to the Dean and Chapter, his time was entirely occupied by duties of another character, and more appropriate—duties which he could exercise with more benefit to the Church. The property of the Dean and Chapter, though very trifling as compared with that of the noble Earl and many of their Lordships, being of a scattered and complicated kind, it was thought better to leave its management to two or three members of that body, or even to one only,—to the Dean, who was more properly vested with the charge and attention to all that concerned the credit, respectability, and honour of the body; and he was glad to say that he could at this time give his confidence to the present Dean of Westminster, a gentleman whom he had known from his earliest youth, and of whom he could say that there lived not a man of purer mind, or one more incapable of encouraging, or profiting by, or tolerating such abominations as those described by the noble Earl. He said also on the occasion previously alluded to, that he had the satisfaction of learning, that not only had some of the leases expired, but that the Dean and Chapter had purchased some of the unexpired terms, and had pulled down some of the houses. Now, he was assured by those who best knew the detail of the subject, and to whom he had referred, that his statement was substantially correct; and had he gone further the statement would have told more creditably even than that to the Dean and Chapter, for not only had they expended their money in purchasing the unexpired terms of some leases, for the sole purpose of suppressing these nuisances, but they had also, under the power of a private Act of Parliament, expended considerable sums of money in purchasing freehold land in the vicinity on which stood houses of the same description, because they felt that the mere suppression of such houses on their own ground would not be of any benefit to the community if their inhabitants could immediately take refuge in the vicinity. He was not aware
1260
that in what he had said he was guilty of any inaccuracy. He understood that the houses were let on lease for forty years. But if he had received due notice he should have told their Lordships that a great many leases, not one only, were let upon similar terms, and that the Dean and Chapter, when aware that houses of an improper kind existed, had in every instance refused to renew the lease. Though the property seemed to be of considerable extent, its value was small, being situated in the lower parts of Westminster; and their Lordships might be assured it would be much more agreeable to the Dean and Chapter to possess property in other parts of the town,—in Berkeley-square for instance, where they could command the most respectable tenants in the kingdom. But there was a matter which the accusers of the Dean and Chapter had kept out of view, and when he said accusers, he meant the noble Earl and the newspapers upon which he built his faith, that was, that those leases were frequently under-leases, and that there was very great difficulty indeed in exercising that influence of property of which the noble Earl spoke in such cases; though it might happen, and did happen in the cases under consideration of which he had spoken, that the immediate tenants were respectable persons, but that the property had got into the hands of under-lessees, over whom there was no means of exercising a salutary control. However, the present state of things was this: several of these leases (the whole number of which was considerable—he believed between a dozen and twenty-some of them comprising a good many houses) had already fallen in—the forty years had expired; others had been bought, and as to others, the Dean and Chapter were at that moment in negotiation for the purpose of purchasing them, and pulling down or shutting them up. Some had been pulled down and others had been shut up; one in particular he was told was formerly held by Caxton, the celebrated printer. The noble Earl stated the other night that he grounded his accusation upon the fact that it had been made two years and a half ago in a newspaper, and had never been contradicted; and that the noble Earl repeated with much emphasis. Now, he (the Bishop of Gloucester) must complain of that reasoning. If it was to be held that an accusation was true because it was made anonymously in a newspaper, he wished to know which of their Lord-

1261
ships or what number of the community would be safe? Most happy must the noble Earl be if he had passed through life unassailed by slander: but it was surely an untoward and tyrannical doctrine that a person should be considered guilty of a charge made in a newspaper, because he had not chosen to come forward and defend himself from an anonymous accusation. He would add one thing more—it was not always possible to do it—contradictions of anonymous calumnies might be sent to newspapers, which if they had an object in view—that of writing a person down, as it was termed—they would refuse to insert; though, to be sure, generally speaking, they might be printed in the form of a paid advertisement. But the truth must be told; the noble Earl was far too hasty in his reasoning and conclusions. He also omitted, no doubt through forgetfulness, to acquaint their Lordships what newspaper it was that he rested upon. Their Lordships might suppose that it was one of those papers which might come under the eyes of the Dean and Chapter, and therefore they would be obliged to know of the accusations. But he (the Bishop of Gloucester) had found out what paper it was — it was a paper called the Patriot. [Earl Fitzhardinge.—"No. no."] I have the paper in my pocket.
Earl Fitzhardinge: I made no charge on mere newspaper authority; and I now make the charge on the authority of Mr. Rogers, the vestry-clerk of the parish of St. Margaret. It was not in that paper that I saw the statement; it was in the Examiner of the 18th of December, 1841. I never saw the Patriot in my life.
The Bishop of Gloucesterbelieved that the explanation of the noble Earl would not very much alter the state of things. But he held the Patriot newspaper in his hand, a paper which was devoted to the most bitter and rancorous attacks upon the Established Church of this country, which paper contained the statement. But the noble Earl dwelt much on the circumstance that the accusations had not been contradicted. It did so happen that they were contradicted in two respectable newspapers, the Morning Herald of the 16th of January, 1843, and the Standard of the 18th of January, 1843, and they were contradicted not anonymously, as the charge had been made, but with the name of a respectable member of society attached, Mr. Hunt, a house-agent and surveyor, who was employed by the Dean and Chapter in
1262
surveying these houses and property, and his statement was a very satisfactory contradiction. Had the noble Earl been aware of the fact, he would not have read with so much glee as he did the statement of the atrocities which the Dean and Chapter tolerated. He said that in Pye-street there were forty brothels, and in Orchard-street thirty, most or all of them being the property of the Dean and Chapter. Now, what was stated upon the plain authority of a man of business? There were two streets in Westminster, at right angles with each other, called Great Pye Street and Little Pye-steet, but in neither one of them did the Dean and Chapter possess a single house. So much for the accuracy with which the noble Earl's statements were made. But why was this bitter attack made upon a body which, at least, were entitled to respect and decency. A few years ago it was found, and complained of loudly, that a house which the Dean and Chapter had leased for forty years as a dwelling-house, had been converted into a Dissenting meeting-house. When this lease came to be renewed, the Dean and Chapter inserted a covenant that the premises should not be occupied as a Dissenting meeting-house, and they inserted similar covenants in other leases. Hinc illœ lachrymœ! Hence all the rancour which they had been subjected to. In future they would take care also that a covenant (thanks to the noble Earl for his suggestion) should be inserted in their leases to prevent the evil complained of; and the first time he was present at a Chapter meeting he would recommend it to the body to which he belonged. Their attention had been anxiously directed to this subject—they had done all that they could do to remedy it, and much as the noble Earl had said about love of lucre, and of the money the Dean and Chapter put into their pockets, the wages of prostitution, as he was pleased to call it, he should observe that a very slight inspection of the accounts respecting those leases, the fines received for them, and the money paid for purchasing the remaining terms, would make it appear that the Dean and Chapter had not profited at all, but had rather been losers by the property. He could not help again saying to their Lordships that he did think it would be a proper, as well as courteous practice, whenever attacks of that kind were to be made, that previous communication should be given to the parties who were to be at-

1263
tacked, in order that they might be prepared to answer, for when persons so attacked replied upon the spur of the moment they were liable to be charged with inaccuracy, and, in fact, could not be expected to be sufficiently informed so as to give a complete answer, which he trusted he had now done. From his own personal knowledge of course he could not speak, but he rested upon the statements of persons of veracity, and not upon anonymous paragraphs in newspapers, as the noble Earl had done.
Earl Fitzhardinge: No, no! I found my accusation upon the authority of the vestry-clerk of St. Margaret's, and not upon anonymous papers. His name is Rogers.
The Bishop of Gloucester: The noble Earl has told the House what Mr. Rogers states; but not that the property is under the control of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. That very day being quarter-day, the Dean of Westminster had sent notices to parties to quit houses belonging to the Dean and Chapter, in order that inquiries might be made as to the respectability of their houses, upon which some suspicion had been thrown; because their Lordships must be aware of the exceeding difficulty of obtaining respectable tenants in a neighbourhood which laboured under the disadvantage of a bad name.
The Bill went through Committee, and the Report was ordered to be received tomorrow.
House adjourned.