JvSV 29,] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 





• 



Fn^FbTeeneral anarchj ; the successor of Boyer baa 

 £^ luperieded by Guerrier, an old General of Chris- 



♦ h- K General, named Acaau, felt indignant at this 

 hne taken place without his being consulted, and 



• ed * counter-proclamation ; he was in possession of 

 VS 811 . hjg followers are represented to be about 500 

 rmtred'men, badly-armed but perfectly under his con- 

 trol • he had flogged many of the prisoners in Fort, 

 Borer unmercifully, and had others shot. With his own 

 hand he is represented to have shot six, and is said to 

 be one of the greatest monsters that ever existed, and 

 his natural ferocity is said to be much increased by an 

 immoderate use of rum. The squadrons of England and 

 France are actively employed in protecting the interests 

 of their respective countries ; but it does not appear that 

 British subjects have been maltreated or threatened. 



parliament. 



HOUSE OP LORDS. 



frifail —On Lord Brougham's motion for the third reading of 

 his Debtors and Creditors Bill, their lordships were occupied 

 teveral hours in discussing the comparative merits of the respec- 

 tive Bills of Lord (Tottenham and Lord Brougham, for the amend- 

 went of the laws relating to bankruptcy and insolvency.— The 

 Lord Chancellor proposed to terminate the controversy by re- 

 ferring both Bills to a select committee, in order that the best of 

 the two might be selected, or a better measure compounded out of 

 both.— Lord Cottbnham, whose Bill stood for third reading, 

 pressed his measure, on the ground that reference to a committee 

 would prevent its passing during the present session; but, on a 

 division, was opposed by 28 to 4, and his Bill, along with Lord 

 Brougham's, was referred to a select committee. 



M onday.— Lord Powis moved that their lordships should go 

 into committee upon his Bill for preventing the threatened amal- 

 gamation of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.— Lord Montbaolb, 

 at some length, defended the course adopted by the Ecclesiastical 

 Commission, of which his lordship was a member, and wished to 

 know if the necessary consent of the Crown had been given to the 

 Bill.— The Duke of Wellington answered that he had not then 

 the authority of her Majesty to signify her consent, but that it 

 might be given at any future stage. His Grace did not mean to 

 give any opposition to the motion fur going into committee, nor to 

 throw any difficulties in the way of amending it; but after the 

 Bill came out of committee, he should then state the course which 

 the Government would think fit to pursue. — The Bill was sup- 

 ported by the Bisnops of Bangor, Salisbury, and Norwich, 

 and went through committee without amendment.— The Bishop 

 of Exeter's Bill for the Suppression of Brothels then came under 

 discussion, and elicited from Lord Fitzhardinoe a repetition of 

 the charges he had on a previous evening made against the Dean 

 and Chapter of Westminster. He accused that reverend body of 

 being the largest holders of the description of property with which 

 the Bill proposed to deal; and, quoting the third clause, showed 

 that if the measure became law, both Dean and Chapter might, as 

 landlords, be proceeded against and punished as severely and as 

 certainly as their tenants. He trusted that if they would legislate 

 at all, they would legislate fairly ; for if. while vice was punished, 

 those who shared its wages escaped, the public voice would de- 

 clare that they had not done even-handed justice.— The Bishop of 

 Glocester, as a member of the Chapter, stood up in its defence, 

 and explained that the houses in question had all been let on leases 

 for 40 years, which gave no power of interference so long as the 

 rent was punctually paid. As soon, however, as the term expired, 

 not only had fresh leases been refused, but several of the houses 

 £* u J )U,Jed down » and in some cases the Dean and Chapter 

 nad bought up the unexpired terms of the leases, and purchased 

 additional houses in the neighbourhood, lest they should, in the 

 nands of less scrupulous landlords, be applied to immoral pur- 

 poses. He complained of the attacks to which the Chapter had 



ni.h!il j » v 0th from Lord F itzhardinge and a portion of the 

 Spy tJ K ? '' ut P romised in conclusion that he would at the 

 dnSa ? a ? mee , tin S» recommend that a clause should be intro- 

 to Xp m * 7 V lease P roh >biting the conversion of the premises 



Bil thin *♦' ? Urpose the BiU was intended to suppress. The 

 *ill then went through committee. 



•0Den M in*5?'7 The ?" 1 of r adnor called attention to the letter- 

 warrant It ll m c at the Post - Offi ce, and moved for a copy of the 

 action? _t„ t* S , c retary of State authorising the recent trans- 

 same ornnia J® ° Wellington opposed the motion on the 

 of State Tn *H rged m the House ot ' Commons, that the Secretary 

 and that it ™. *?¥*•' Which was exercised on his responsibility, 

 ^»llk cited ?h notadvi f able to give explanations— Lord Tankbr 



the tune of i^? 1 " 1 * 1 * °n !fr Fox » who had si S ned a rainute ' in 

 letters of tL ?« ■ ? e . Gordon « authorising the opening of the 



oensureJ se J?S2 g ?i, lmni8t f rs --" The Ma rquess of Clanricardk 



«Mes-Th7Fari y At conduct of the Government in the recent 

 odious one hut * IlADDINOTO * admitted that the power was an 

 confidence ';„£»? neces sary, and could only be exercised by 

 *ere no Ironnrt. , Mimster to whom it was entrusted. There 



^^^h^n\Sli^^ meut ^ inva[x y''' Lord Campbkll 

 *buse of the nnl I . d some assurance been given that no 



could obtain »« ,?{ *! en place ' but all the information they 

 what occurred tn A>\ th _ e Home Secretary refused to tell them 

 il - The character rJf^ other Ministers knew nothing about 



taken place — Lord r count ry was compromised by what had 

 was imperative on p *r Justicb Dbnman considered that it 

 Power so odious thL T^ ment to inquire into the nature of a 

 "tence without rnnii« ?- eople wou,d not endure its longer ex- 

 questionofexnedien,,7 Cat - on - He did not I°ok upon this as a 

 and wrong. He cm.M ° r lnex P ed «ency, but as a question of right 

 e that it »-,„ l._ no .t conceive it to be more necessary to 



[1841. 



then withdrew his motion, because he intended to bring the 



matter again before the House in some decided shape, the nature 

 of which he would state on a future occasion. — Lord Wharn- 



C r LI ^ yB ^, m ^ V ? d the 8econd reading of the Charitable Bequests 

 (Ireland) Bill, the object of which was to re-constitute the com- 

 mission on charitable bequests in Ireland, to render it more im- 

 partial, in the opinion of the Roman Catholics of that country, 

 and to provide that any person wishing to make a provision, by 

 bequest of land or other property, for the Roman Catholic clergy, 

 might constitute the commissioners trustees of such property, for 

 the benefit of the individuals to whom it applied.— The Bishop of 

 Exetbr, the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Monteaglb, Earl of Had- 

 DiKCToisr, Lord Hatherton, and the Marquess of Clanricarde, 

 supported the Bill, which was read a second time. 



Thursday.— The Presbyterian Marriages Bill passed through 

 committee. A great number of petitions were presented against 

 the Dissenters' Chapels Bill, and the Bishop of London intimated 

 his intention of objecting to it upon its return from the House of 

 Commons. — The Marquess of Clanricardk called attention to 

 the operation of the Poor-law in Ireland, and moved for docu- 

 ments calculated to illustrate the real nature of the system.— 

 The Duke of Wellington admitted that there was reason in the 

 complaints urged in Ireland against the law. A committee of the 

 House of Commons was inquiring into the subject, and as soon as 

 it had made its report the Government would adopt measures to 

 correct the evils. He consented to the production of the papers. 

 —The motion was agreed to, after a few remarks from the Earl of 

 Mountcashbl, who said that the Poor law was unpopular with 

 all classes in Ireland. 



Friday.— The Irish Marriages Bill was read a second time 

 pro forma.— The Sugar Duties BiU was read a first time. — 

 The Earl of Radnor presented a petition from M. Mazzini, 

 complaining that his letters were wrongfully broken open at 

 the Post-office, The noble lord supported the prayer of the 

 petition, and said he would give notice of motion on the subject 

 on a future day. He wished to know if any warrant had been 

 issued for breaking open the seals of M.Mazzini's letters?— The 

 Duke of Wellington could not answer the question, because 

 he had received no notice on the subject.— Lord Radnor then 

 gave notice of his motion for Thursday next.— After a few 

 remarks from Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell said he 

 was of opinion that the Act of Parliament did not author- 

 ise espionage, and the breaking open of letters, re seal- 

 ing them, and then sending them to their destination.— 

 The Lord Chancellor intimated that one warrant was suffi- 

 cient to authorise the opening of any number of letters ad- 

 dressed to one individual for a certain period; as notice of a 

 motion on the subject had been given by a noble earl, the 

 question would, when that motion was before the House, be 

 better discussed on that opportunity.— Lord Campbell said the 

 existing Act provided that a warrant should be issued in each 

 case when a letter was to be opened.— The Lord Chancellor 

 said that, to do that the Secretary of State would have to go to the 

 Post-office, and put his finger on a letter, and say " Open this. M — 

 Lord Dbnman thought there was another mode. They esta- 

 blished a system of espionage at the Pobt-office. A spy might 

 write to the Secretary of state, and say, •* You will receive a 

 letter lrom Portsmouth on such a day." He felt that the 

 Secretary could not conveniently exercise this enormous power, 

 unless he stopped every letter on a certain day. If the Act of 

 Parliament was difficult to be carried into operation, so much 

 the better. Such Acts ought to be difficult in being carried into 

 operation. The circumstances of this particular case which 

 had come to the knowledge of their Lordships made it most 

 imperative on the Government to introduce some new measure, 

 to render the law clear on the subject. (Left sitting.) 



and 

 prove 



M 





«rci 8 ed in ^ucTa^^fu 3 * 8ucn " a P ower as this should be ex " 

 JVOckel s. As to Mr v n t0 P rove {t t0 be wrong to pick 



J 11 ** when all iw n n considerin S that he came into office at a 

 En gland w dS Dv " °£ e Was »n league against England, and that 



Jf r >' likely have hpLn„/ at P eace witnin herself, there might 

 this power; but did .,?°S ground8 for resorting to the exercise of 

 ^ Pressing nece«ir?« > ?r ounds exist now ? But even under 

 « J e rcise of this dow-I i ?L S situat ">n, he was convinced that the 

 "regret and disp.TL 11111 ^ have cost Mr. Fox many bitter feelings 

 «erci Se of 8uch sust^ To any man of honourable feelings the 



Placing as it must £f«r JS" st be in the highest degree repugnant, 

 Jhove all things, 1^ * lm . the P rivate affairs o{ famil ^ s - who 



!? 0uld remain wcJcdFv V e " ired that a knowledge of those affairi 

 aem bersofwh . ch ^av llmite d to their own drcle; and ^ 



III ay ^sociate w J tne 1 rnini ster himself might perhaps that 

 lt2J°^ ession of thiriLi d not he, P thinking, too, that the 

 2» und er c?rcnS e A and the habit of el 



exercising it, and 





tnr>r«- Y M ""er cirnirn,* -»-**u iuc jiauu oi exercising u. ana 





J^ething very l iJt e t'*!" ol ™g not merely concealment, but 

 arbitr iDd - He could f? must haye a tendency to demoralise 

 5£S7 exerci " of surh a ° 0nCeive but that the Possession and 

 *£KS ent ' must have ™ P ^ Wer on the P art of the head of the 

 «*n«£i e * ver y far fro*" * ffect u P°n the subordinates at the 

 "ot S^^Pondence ? T f 1 f ulated to P reserve the sanctity of 

 I-ord ffi ly — T he Duke of w CaSes t0 which th e warrants did 

 ^J kut,ati7 MAVWa »notonf^ Bl ' t, - NOTOK: Re P eal the statute.- 



*z p^?2 up 1 "' u %Mife i 7th t aT: u,d not be 2 weu to doso ' 



k s for the anJr exe «-cise of VifJ? IT hat s J ome restrictions should be 

 «»»cei v! n dance ^ the r r i n P I"' and " rtain r »le S be laid down 



against the motion.-The Earl of Ramoi 



HOUSE OF COMMONS. 

 Friday.— On the question for going into committee on the 

 Dissenters' Chapels Bill, Mr. Plumptrb expressed his sorrow 

 and surprise that such a Bill as this should have received the 

 sanction of Government. Had it been proposed by Lord J. 

 Russell when he was in office, it would have received strenuous 

 opposition ; and in comparison with it, the appropriation clause 

 was honesty and purity. The Christian people of this country 

 felt deeply the wound inflicted by the Bill ; and he had clung- to 

 the hope that it would be abandoned. He moved that the order 

 for going into committee be discharged.— Lord J. Russell did 

 not doubt Mr. Plumptre's sincerity ; he himself had been warned 

 by constituents, no doubt equally sincere, that he would lose 

 their support if he continued his support of the Bill. But fur- 

 ther consideration only strengthened bis conviction in its 

 favour. If Unitarians were not to receive equal consideration 

 with other Dissenters, then let toleration be the exception, 

 rather than the rule — he, however, would call it persecution. If 

 the Unitarians were not to be secured in possession of the pro- 

 perty now in their hands, he knew of no other body of Dis- 

 senters who could establish their claim to it; and in doing jus- 

 tice we had no right to look at the religious opinions of the 

 parties. Though the Unitarians were not legally tolerated till 

 1813, practically they enjoyed it long before ; and hart the ques- 

 tion involved in this Bill arisen in the time of Sir R. Wal- 

 pole or Lord Chatham, they would have dealt with it on the 

 same principle as it is now proposed to settle it. — sir R. Peel 

 said that the Government had treated this question as one 

 of property, not of faith; they were not endowing Unita- 

 rianism, but deciding a controversy as to rights of pro- 

 perty by that rule of prescription which is the founda- 

 tion of justice. Therefore, notwithstanding unpopularity 

 and misconstruction, they were still perfectly convinced that 

 their course was one right in itself, and fair to all parties. — After 

 some further discussion, in which several members joined, Mr. 

 Plumptre withdrew his amendment, and the House went into 

 Committee on the Bill. The first clause was agreed to. On 

 the 3econd, Mr. Shaw moved an amendment, the specific ob- 

 ject of which was to enable the Synod of Ulster to claim certain 

 endowments alleged to be founded for Trinitarian doctrines, 

 and which he urged belonged to them on every principle of law 

 and equity. This was opposed by the Solicitor- General and 

 Sir R. Peel, and on a division was negatived by 161 to43.— 

 Mr. Shaw then moved that " sixty " years should be substitu- 

 for "twenty-five" years' usage. This, however, was not 

 pressed to a division.— The Attorvey-Gkxkral, in answer to 

 Mr. S. O'Brien, said that occupation of a chapel by the adherents 

 and teachers of a specific form of doctrine and worship during 

 twenty-five years would be taken as evidence of •'usage/' 

 This point raised discussion, and the Attorvky-Gknural pro- 

 mised to consider the terms of the clause, with a view to render 

 it as complete as possible, and prevent the possibility of its 

 being perverted to the purposes of creating a new test. The 

 second clause, after prolonged discussion and division, was ul- 

 timately carried by 198 to 62.— Lord Ashley wished to replace 

 clause three by another, which would have the effect of ena- 

 bling a separation to be made between the Trinitarian and 

 Unitarian bequests in an endowment ; but being met by an ob- 

 jection in point of form did not press it. The third clause was 

 agreed to ; and the Bill having been gone through, was ordered 

 to be reported, a loud cheer marking its passing ths stage. 

 Monday.— Mr. T. DtwcaMBB presented a petition from Charles 



Stolzberg, a Polish refugee, complaining of the opening of his 

 letters by the Post-office authorities. The hon. Member stated 

 at length the grounds of complaint made by this gentleman, as 

 well as by Mr. Mazzini, whose complaint had been before the 

 House a few days ago. Mr. Mazzini asserted that from 60 to 

 70 letters addressed to him had been opened since the beginning 

 of March last ; that, in opening his letters, every care had been 

 taken to avoid suspicion; that impressions had been taken from 

 the seals, and from these the opened letters were re-sealed ; and 

 that the cut was made so clean, that it required a microscope 

 to discover it. There were also, he said, double impressions 

 made with the Post-office stamps, so that the date when the 



letters were received ut the Post-office might not appear. Both 

 Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Stolzberg denied that their correspondence 

 contained anything to warrant such espionage. Mr. Dun com be 

 said that this violation of correspondence, as he could prove, had 

 been carried on to a very great extent during the iasttwo years. 

 He charged the Post-office authorities with maintaining a secret 

 letter. opening machinery, and accused the Government with 

 not only conniving at it, in order to make a political use of the 

 information thus surreptitiously obtained, but with exceeding 

 the powers of the law in authorising it. He moved that the 

 petition be referred to a select committee, in order not only to 

 inquire into its allegations, but also into the system.— Dr. Bow- 

 rino seconded the motion.— Sir J. Graham complained of the 

 want of courtesy manifested in his not being fully apprised 

 of the whole circumstances of the case, including the name of 

 the petitioner, before it was brought under the consideration of 

 the House. He had been merely informed that another petition 

 was to be presented. No man respected public opinion more 

 than he did, or wished more to stand well with his fellow- 

 countrymen ; but, occupying a high and responsible situation, 

 he would not allow regard for his private character to 

 overcome his sense of what was due to the public security 

 and service. He would, therefore, stand on the fact that the 

 law vested such a power in the Home Secretary. Any 

 person opening letters in the Post-office, without autho- 

 rity, was liable to indictment for a misdemeanour; the 

 Home Secretary was open to prosecution, if he had exceeded 

 his powers; and, denying that he had done anything question- 

 able, he demurred to an inquiry, either by the House of Com- 

 mons or by a select committee— Mr. Macaulay thought that 

 Sir J Graham did not seem to be aware of the grave nature of 

 the question which had belli raised. Now that their attention 

 had been thus called to it, this was a power which could no 

 longer be suffered to exist, without great modification. A 

 letter in the Post office ought to be as sacred as one preserved 

 in a desk; it was merely confided to Government for the pur- 

 poses of transit, and certainly was not intended for the purposes 

 of a secret police. The letters of Wilkes were taken out of his 

 desk, and he recovered lOOO/. damages against the then Home 

 Secretary. No reason could be alleged for the defence of this 

 letter- opening practice, which could not also be urged in 

 defence of the spy system in the worst of times; and it would 

 be better that, occasionally, even a great crime should be com- 

 mitted, than that such a practice, shrouded in secresy, should 

 be suffered to exist, and all private correspondence be placed at 

 the mercy of a vague suspicion on the part of an official, or to 

 gratify a continental despot. Two years ago the disturbances 

 in the manufacturing districts were ascribed to the machina- 

 tions of the Anti-Corn-law League; everybody knew that it 

 was utterly unfounded, yet the correspondence of thirty or 

 forty gentlemen might, on such a suspicion, have been sub- 

 mitted to the inspection of the authorities. If Sir J. Graham 

 had been able to contradict the allegations that there were 

 duplicate seals, and a regular system for opening letters unde- 

 tected at the Post-office, no doubt he would have done so. In 

 the case brought under their notice, the character of the 

 country was involved. Ao Italian, who believed that he could, 

 with a freedom unknown in his own country, commit his 

 thoughts to the safe guardianship of the Post-office, found his 



correspondence violated ; and as there was no Bill before the 

 House for taking away this power, the next best thing he could 

 do was to support the motion for an inquiry.— Captain Bkrnau 

 said a rumour was abroad that Irish correspondence was 

 habitually violated, but Sir J. Graham, wrapping himself 

 up in the tattered garments of his public virtue, refused 

 all explanation.— Lord Shklburxb suggested that when a let- 

 ter was opened it should be afterwards forwarded without 

 any attempt to disguise the opening.— Sir R. Pkel vindicated 

 the course taken by Sir J. Graham. This power had subsisted 

 from the time ol Queen Anne; and the present act, a modifica- 

 tion of the old law, had been passed in the time of the late 

 Ministry. If it ought to be altered, let its alteration be moved 

 upon notice for leave to bring in a Bill. The Secretary of State, 

 if he had answered the questions in this case, would have ex- 

 posed himself to be called upon by every man who should at 

 any time suspect that he had had a letter opened.— Lord J. 

 Russkll did not think that Sir R. Peel had altered the com- 

 plexion of the case. Sir J. Graham might have imitated the 

 conduct of Sir R. Walpole in the case of Bishop Atterbury, and 

 contending that the power was necessary for the public safety, 

 with respect to internal dangers, have given some general indi- 

 cation of the principle on which he acted, without entering on 

 details. It would be a most unjustifiable use of this power if it 

 were exercised to oblige foreign Governments ; and it would be 

 no derogation of the position or dignity of Sir J. Graham if he 

 were to submit to an inquiry. The Home Secretary might be 

 no more to blame than Lord Melbourne was in the case of 

 Coffey the policeman; but responsibility was at an end if a 

 Minister refused all explanation, and sheltered himself behind 

 a majority.— Mr. M. Milnes regretted that Sir J. Graham had 

 not felt it consistent with his duty to state whether or not it 

 was for the use of foreign Governments the information was 

 sought. It was however a question of confidence.— Mr. Shkiu 

 thought that enough had come out, even from the admissions 

 of the Government, to justify investigation. Why should Sir 

 J. Graham stand on his own self- will? It had been boasted 

 four months ago, in the Augsburg Gazette, that Mazzini was 

 under the surveillance of the juonaon police. The charge against 

 tnem was, that they had resorted to the un-English practice of 

 violating the correspondence of an exile, who had taken refuge 

 amongst them, and this in order to gratify a foreign Govern, 

 meat; and the English community revolted at the idea that 

 the privacy of their affections and afflictions should be open 

 to the inspection of the Home-office. — Mr. S. Wostlsj 

 defended the Government. - Mr. Waelbv said that it had 

 beeu complained that the particular name, in tue ' case De- 

 fore the House, had not been previously communicated. Was 

 it not a fair inference from this, that the practice was a com mon, 

 every-day one? Worse than employing spies was the odious 

 practice of prying into people's letters, at the nod or beck of 

 somebody. Sir J. Graham refused all explanation, and retired 

 on responsibility. But responsibility was accountability ; and 

 how could they make the Home Secretary accountable without 

 an inquiry i The petitioners only asked to find out the scoun- 

 drels who had employed Sir J. Graham ; the independence of 

 the House— if it had any left— was at stake; and Sir J. Graham, 

 who was one of the loudest of the ironical cheerers, when Mr* 

 Ferrand ** demurred" to the tribunal of the House, had himself 

 "demurred * to it, and was therefore embarked with the mem- 

 ber for Kuaresborough in the same sinking boat. A sagacious 

 old politician had said to him the other day, " A Government 

 that employs spies is vastly odious ; but i will tell you of a 

 Government which is worse— a Government which makes 

 itself a spy." — Lord Howick said, it was in vain to talk of 

 appeals to courts of law; nobody denied the legal right; the 

 question was one of Ministerial responsibility ; and the refusal 

 to answer was a serious blow to the principle of protection to 

 foreigners. It was a refusal, too, which might lead in the 

 times ot future Secretaries of State even to tne opening of the 

 letters of their political opponents.— Lord Stavlkv observed, 

 that the supporters of the motion had all the popularity oa 

 their side, while the Ministers by their official responsibility- 

 were placed in fetters. Would you allow every * ndirkil {* 

 who chose to say, but without any evidence, th * t h ? 

 believed the Government had opened a letter of ni+ 

 to demand a committee of the House of c ^/"r*£ 

 He protested against the unfounded ^J^S^^ 



assumptions made in this debate. Gentlemen .^^"T^ 

 thP manner i« W M*»* fh. n rt «r e r had been exercised; wna« am 



of that exercise i Lord J Rossdl 

 would very preperly refuse to answer if you asKea mm in waw 



the manner in which the power had bee- — - ttlf - ^m 



they know about the manner of that exercise ?_ Lord J. Kasneu 



