kingdom that did not heap insults or expressions of disgust on his name. This state of things could not continue; accordingly, we find Lord Radnor, moving soon after in the House of Lords, for a return of all the warrants which had been issued for the detention of letters during a certain period, animadverting especially upon the alleged practice of general warrants to intercept all letters addressed to a certain person instead of there being issued a separate warrant in the case of each letter.[117] This mode of proceeding, as he truly said, if acted upon, was a flagrant violation of the words of the statute. Lord Campbell expressed the same views. Lord Brougham observed that the first statute conferring this power had been framed by Lord Somers. It had been continued ever since by various Acts, and had been exercised by Sir Robert Walpole, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Fox, as well as under the administrations of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. If Lord Campbell's construction of the Act were correct, the sooner they had a new one the better. Lord Denman was for putting an end to the power altogether. The return was granted, the Duke of Wellington approving the Home Secretary's conduct notwithstanding. On the 24th of June, 1844, Mr. Duncombe again called the attention of the House of Commons to the subject, by presenting a petition from Mr. Charles Stolzman, a Polish refugee, complaining that his letters had been detained and opened. Mr. Duncombe contended that the Act of 1837 never meant to confer an authority upon a Minister of the Crown to search out the secrets of exiles resident in this country at the instance of foreign Governments, but was only designed to meet the case of domestic treason. "Mr. Stolzman was a friend of M. Mazzini," said Mr. Duncombe, "and this was why his letters had been tampered with." After describing the way in which letters were opened, he concluded a most powerful speech by again moving for a committee of inquiry. He did not want to know Government secrets; he doubted if they were worth knowing; but he wanted inquiry into the practice of the Department, which he contended was unconstitutional and contrary to law. Sir James Graham, without entering into any further explanation, except saying that the law had not been violated, and that if it had, the honourable member might prove it before a legal tribunal, objected strongly, and in almost a defiant manner, to any committee. Mr. Macaulay, Lord Howick, Mr. Sheil, and Lord John Russell warmly supported the motion for an inquiry. Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Monckton Milnes opposed it, when it was rejected by a majority of forty-four. What party speeches failed in doing, the clamour and popular tumult outside at length accomplished. Popular ridicule settled upon the subject; pencil and pen set to work upon it with a will. Newspapers were unusually, and sometimes unreasonably, free in their comments, and all kinds of stories about the