The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-15 00:00:00

s persona, and they ought to have further informa-
tion on the subject.—(Cheers.) He would do his best
to arrest this system of prying into letters on the part of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He
told them that this warrant no longer existed, but he did
not tell them when it ceased to exist, nor when it was
issued. He should like to see a copy of that warrant,
and if the House did see it they would
be able to ascertain to whom it was ad-
dressed, and on whose authority this extraordinary
proceeding had been adopted. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man said that no other letters had been opened. He
(Mr. T. Duncombe) said that the letters of Lovett,
Mazzini, and the other gentlemen, had been opened,
read, and examined, at the Post-office, and that they
bad afterwards been returned. A copy of that warrant
ought to be before the House of Commons, and he
should therefore move that a copy of that warrant
be laid before the House.—(Cries of " Order, order !"
from the Ministerial benches, answered by cheers from
the Opposition.) Well, then, in order to give Hon.
Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion, he
would move that the House do now adjourn—(Cheers)--
and he would take the sense of the House, if he Stood
alone, on the question of the manner in which the Go-
vernment had interfered with the most sacred privileges
of the subject.
Mr. WALLACE said that when the Post-office Act
had passed, in 1837, the Right Hon. Member for Taun-
ton had assured the House that the Bill contain nothing
but a consolidation of the former Acts. The House be-
lieved that it was a consolidation only, and not an alte-
ration. The word authorising this interference with
letters had been introduced secretly, and without the
knowledge of Members. The Bill had been passed
under the idea that it was only a fair consolidation,
whereas it was an unfair and unjust alteration of the
former• Act. With regard to the practice, it was nothing
new. He had frequently drawn the attention of the
House to it. It was one of the accusations which he
had been in the habit of bringing forward year after year,
while he was agitating the question of Post- office reform.
The Secretary of State had excused the practice, and he
(Mr. Wallace) believed that at the present moment there
was a regular machinery at the Post-office for the pur-
pose. There was a room set apart for opening letters
and examining them, and he believed that persons had
been sent abroad to study in the school of Fouche, how
to open, fold, and reseal letters in the Post-office in London.
He maintained that the same perfect and entire freedom
which was extended to a man's person should be extended
to his correspondence. He admitted the power to open
letters was given in the Act of Parliament ; but he
denied that it ought to be there. At the time when
franking was the privilege of Members, he (Mr. Wallace)
wrote on the outside of all his franks and letters "Please
to reseal and forward this letter after you have read it, and
do not burn it,"—(Loud laughter)—and many of
his letters were subsequently re-endorsed—for they had
been shown to him by their recipients—" this is one of
Mr. Wallace's (the Member for Greenock) own letters,
be sure and forward it."—(Great laughter.) He was ex-
ceedingly sorry to be obliged to say any thing about the
consolidation of the Post-office Acts, but it was when
they were consolidated that this abominable authority
had got in. This had been discovered in the Act soon
after it had passed, not by himself, but by a friend, and
it must have got there in a manner he would not particu-
larly characterise.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said, as so heavy a charge had
been brought against him—for it was in the year 1836,
when he was in office, and by the department of which he
was at the head, that the consolidation of the Post-office
Acts was effected, he was sure the House would in-
dulge him for a few moments, whilst he said a few words
in explanation and in self-vindication. His Hon. Friend
said he at that time gave a power to the Secretary of
State—(Cries of " No, no ")—so he (Mr. Labouchere)
had understood his Hon. Friend. Now he had a

distinct recollection of what the law was before the con-
solidation, and his belief was that such power existed
, at that time, and had existed for years and years before.
At that time he did what he professed ; he did not alter
the law, but he consolidated all the laws having any rela-
tion to the Post-office. But he would read the words of the
old Act. They were, that no one shall open letters
" except by express warrant under the hand of one of
the Secretaries of State, for every such opening, detain-
ing, or delaying." With respect to the right itself, in his
(Mr. Labouchere's) opinion, it was a power proper to be
vested in some person whose responsibility would
be a sufficient guarantee for its proper exercise. He
admitted the responsibility was great, but still he could
easily imagine cases where the necessity for such a
power would be imminent.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Treasury benches.) Ho knew nothing whatever of the
particulars of the present case ; but he upheld the neces-
sity of a power, under proper responsibility, to open or to
delay letters, and he would not consent that such power
should be taken away.
Dr. BOWRING could not deny that there might be
cases of extreme necessity, in which the exercise of such
a power as this might be called for. But these cases
could only and ought only to have reference to our own
domestic affairs, and he was sadly afraid that home
affairs could not be stated as the cause for the present
interference.—(Cheers.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir J. Graham) would only state that the power had
been exercised on account of, and solely for, home
affairs, the matter, is his opinion, could easily be settled.
—(Hear, hear.) If he did not do this, there could only
be one inference that the letters were opened, not for an
honest English purpose, but for a discretable foreign
one.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. WARBURTON sail the words in the Act were
the same as those in the previous one.
Mr. HUME—No, they are not the same. Here is the
old Act ; read the words yourself.—(Mr. Hume here
handed the old Act to the Hon. Member for Kendal.)
Mr. WARBURTON (having read the clause)—Then,
he must say, he liked those words better, for according
to this old Act, a warrant was required for
each separate opening, detention, or delay. He
did not agree with the Hon. Member for Finsbury
in saying there ought not to be this power vested in the
Secretary of State. But he thought that this power
ought to be exercised only in cases of great importance
and emergency, and he thought there being a separate
warrant required for shOwing each letter was a salutary
provision, and he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man whether he issued a separate warrant in each case
in which a letter had been opened ?
Sir J. GRAHAM (with considerable hesitation in
his manner)—l really must appeal to the House, Sir. In
the statement I made at first I said that I had gone the
full length of explanation that I thought consistent with
my duty. I must, therefore, repeat that Ido not con-
sider it consistent with my public duty to proceed in any
further explanation.
Mr. WARBURTON—Then I collect from the an-
swer of the Right Hon. Gentleman that he will not inform
the House whether he acted legally or not.—(Cheers,
cries of " Order, order," and " Spoke, spoke.")
Mr. ROEBUCK thought with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, the Member for Taunton, that this power, vested
in a Secretary of State, ought to be exercised with great
caution. He thought the Secretary of State ought to be re-
sponsible to the House of Commons, and it would be well
if there should be ordered to be placed on the table of the
House of Commons, every six months, a return of the
number of letters opened under a Secretary of State's
warrant.
Mr. HUME had never heard it avowed by any
Minister before that he had given any authority whatever
for opening private letters which were passing
through the Post-office. He was of opinion, that
notwithstanding what had fallen from his Hon. Friend,
that in a free country such a privilege ought not to exist.
(Cheers.) They were told that the slave the moment
be touched the soil became free, but by this privilege
being vested in the Secretary of State, the man who was
free upon that soil became a slave himself. It appeared
to him to be an attack on public liberty. He would ask
how long the warrant which the Right Hon. Gentleman
had issued had been in existence ? It might have
been existing for many months past. Why should
such a system of espionage exist—why should her Ma-
jesty's Secretary of State be made a police-officer for
the protection of the Emperor of Russia, or any other
individual? Such a thing was a disgrace to the coun-
try. It was discreditable to the man who attempted it,
and dishonourable in a House of Commons that would
sanction it. He thought they had a right to demand
further explanation from the Right Honourable
Baronet. We were at perfect peace in this coun-
try, and no plots were in agitation; consequently there
was no necessity for such a privilege being exercised as
that which had been taken advantage of by the Right
lion. Gentleman. This appeared to him to be one of the
most disgraceful transactions he had ever heard of. He
differed with the Speaker, in thinking that this
was not a case of pressing grievance. They had
a right, he said again, .to demand an explanation
_from the Right Honourable Gentleman, for the act
was a most discreditable and disgraceful one, and the
Bight Hon. Baronet might depend upon it that if ho did
not give that explanation it would not be the last time
he would hear of it. He trusted, therefore, that the
Right Hon. Baronet, for his own sake, would give the ex-
planation which had been required of him.
Mr. F. FRENCH said it was evident from the answer
tsf the Right Hon. Baronet, that both he and the Post-
.office authorities had been guilty of misdemeanour on
t 'lire() or four occasions, for it must be evident to every
one 74 from the answer which had been given by the
Righ t Hon. Baronet, that only one warrant had been
issued, inasmuch as he had stated that " the " warrant
had bee n withdrawn.
Mr. 'ATSON begged to call the attention of the
House tot 'he words of the Act of Parliament. It was
certainly a most unconstitutional exercise of power, and
most unpopt tlar, to open the letters in the Post-office,
and therefore... *le Act of Parliament should be construed
strictly. He -.wanted to know from the Government and
law-officers of the Crown what interpretation they
would put on ;the Act of Parliament. There was a
great distinction
.between warrants to open particular
letters which would. pass through the Post-office on a
particular day, alit ge,neral warrants to open particular
letters, directed to a partl:eukt;•individual.—(Hear.) The
House should recollect wlnet a .:,truggle there was about
general warrants as to service. Iles would call the atten-
tion of the House to the two Acts of Parliament on the
subject. The first Act was the 9th of Anne, chap. 10,
sec. 40, and the words of it were—" Exc. 'pt by express
warrant in writing, under the hand of one of her Ma-
jesty's principal Secretaries of State for every . such open-
ing, detention, or delay.": Could any one, giving . 't fair in
terpretation to those words, say that it meant t. hat you
were
to have a warrant to be kept in force till rove lied to
open all letters coming in a particular handwritin" ,to a
Particular individual
—(Hear.) Now let them see' bow
this
non.smmbealrterd .by the statute proposed by the
Taunton. The House would ref fleet
that that Act or Parliament
was
to consolidate Post oan Act passed n
Acts. The words in that were, "to open, detain,
No,wor delay letters in obedience °an
express warrant."
at was meant by an exp miss
warrant—it meant an ex w an-ant to open letters, by
writing under the hafatiesso;v
Secretaries of State. Ia alle of
the princip 1
look back to the Acts of Parliament which exiatvo,l
matters they mu