the discoveries and the benefits were so many as to counterbalance the odium of countenancing what was so like a public crime, and which violated public confidence in the Post-Office, or whether the issue of a few warrants annually, in proportion to the 40,000 committals[125] which took place yearly at that time, could by any means be called an efficient instrument of police, are vastly different questions. With regard to the general question of letter-opening, the issue was altogether vague and uncertain. Though the _practical_ end of the inquiry was, no doubt, gained, and warrants may almost be said to have ceased, still the Committees recommended Parliament to decide that the power and prerogative of opening letters, under certain given circumstances, should _not_ be abrogated. They argued that, if the _right_ of the Secretary of State was denied, it would be equivalent to advertising to every criminal conspirator against the public peace, that he might employ the Post-Office with impunity.[126] It was decided, in consequence of this finding, that the law should remain unaltered. Mr. Duncombe was not satisfied. In the next session he attempted to revive the subject by calling the attention of the House to what he termed the evasive and unsatisfactory character of the report of the Secret Committee, and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject over again; but he met with little success. Sir J. Graham, Sir. R. Peel, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Ward, and Lord John Manners, spoke against his motion, which he then withdrew. Upon this, Lord Howick tried to carry a resolution for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Duncombe's letters only. Mr. Disraeli seconded the motion, desiring not to have the Government censured, but to see the practice condemned. Mr. Roebuck believed that the country would not be content until the invidious power intrusted to the Secretary of State respecting letter-opening was absolutely abolished. Lord John Russell spoke against the motion, which was negatived by 240 to 145 members.[127] A few days later Mr. Duncombe renewed his attack in another form, moving that Colonel Maberly, Secretary to the Post-Office, should attend at the bar and produce certain books connected with his office. The Home Secretary resisted the motion, grounding his objection on the reports of the Committees and the necessities of the public service. Lord John Russell and a great number of the Liberal party concurring in this view, the motion was again rejected by 188 to 113.[128] For some weeks the subject was not again noticed in Parliament, and probably would have dropped; but it was a theme on which the Press could not be induced to be silent. Fresh events occurring in Italy, owing, it was said, to the past action of the English Government at the Post-Office, Mr. Sheil gave notice of a resolution, which he moved on the 1st of April, 1845, expressing regret