The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

Justice of England against the attacks of the Learned Lord
behind hire, once the Attorney-General of Queen Caroline,
and the Lord C-lancellor that s upported and promoted him.
The Noble Lordlitd attacked 117..n1 because he could not answer

the arguments of his Learned Ff.end—arguments which, how-
ever they might he disregarded by that House, would obtain
for him from the country still greater admiration than his name
had already attained. But what was the practice now pursued
in the Post-office? They had a false seal, they opened the
letter, they tick a copy of it. then cloetl it again, they
affixed a false seal to it, and thus sent it to its original desti •
nation. This was a custom so abhorrent to all honour and
integrity, that every nation but England had renounced it. M.
Guizot had declared that he calsidered the Pont-office sacred,
and that the practice adopted in this country would be a disgrace
to his. If the law remained as it was, an action might he
brought against Sir James Graham by Mr. Duncombe or Mr.
Mazzini ; a jury might, under the direction of the judge,
return a verdict against the Secretary of State, and the
most enormous damages returned against him ; and
thus an officer of the Crown, conscientiously discharging the
duties imposed upon him by law, might be punished, not for
any delinquency of his own, but for the defect of the law.
The practice did not exist by statute until the time of Queen
Anne, but neither that Act, nor those passed in the subsequent
reigns, gave the power to the Secretary of State—when then
did it exist? He held that it did not waist at all, and he be-
lieved that common law would so decide. The person isuing
the warrant was responsible at law, not the person who
carried it into effect. He admitted that the Secretary of State
had the power of issuing a warrant for the opening of letters in
a house or elsewhere, if they were necessary fori the ends of
justice ; but he had no power to cause letters passing through
the Pest-office to be opened. He agreed with
the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench
that the power did not exist. If the power was to continue,
surely some register should be kept of the letters opened.
He hoped their Lordships would accede to the motion, and
assured them that they would carefully examine the measure
in Committee.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said the subject had been
nearly exhausted, and there was so much miseonception of the
law amongst Noble Lords that he was anxious to say a few
words concerning it. It was impossible not to entertain the
idea that the law was legal ; and if he could show that it was
sanctioned by law he should be warranted in coming to the
conclusion that it was a part of the acknowledged law of the
land. The power was exercised in the time of the Common-
wealth, and the reports of the Committees of both Houses of
Parliament bore him out in this view. During that period
the Post-office was leased to a person of the name of Bishop,
and a provision was inserted in the lease reserving the power of
opening letters to the Secretary of State. Subsequently it
was leased to a person of the name of O'Neil, and the same
power was retained as in the case of Bishop. In each of these
cases a proclamation was issued, specifying that the Post-
office had been leased to them, and recognising the
Fame right. In the time of Charles 11., a person named
Coleman was put on his trial for sedition, and the principal
charges were substantiated by letters which had been inter-
cepted in their progress through the Post-office. He did not
say that he approved either of the trial or the verdict of
the jury, but neither the judge nor the jury considered
that the proceedings were illegal. If it had been consi-
dered a violation of the law, was it not likely that it would
have been alluded to on the trial. The evidence on the trial
of Atterburty mainly consisted of letters from the Post-office,
which were proved at the bar of that House. No objection
was made by the prisoner himself, or by any of the learned
individuals at that time, that the Secretary of State was not
entitled to intercept letters passing through the Post-office,
and to bring them in evidence against a person on his trial.
He would ask if that was not the strongest evidence that the
power was legally exercised at that time by the Secretary of
State. Another material fact, in support of his opinion, was the
case which cawed so much sensation at the time, namely, the
opening of the letters of Members of Parliament by the Master
of the Post-office. A resolution was passed to the effect that
it was a breach of privilege to open any of their letters, except
by a warrant of the Secretary of State. What could be a more
distinct recognition of the power than this, that it was vested
in the Secretary of State for the time being. The case of Hems.
worth also substantiated his view of the law. On the trial of
Horne Tooke a letter from the Post-office was produced in
evidence. Now if that was an infraction of the law would not
those eminent individuals Mr. Erskine or Mr. Gibbs, who were
counsel for Mr. Tooke, or the judge, or the bench, have taken
notice of it? Would they have suffered such an infraction
when a letter was produced in evidence against their client?
He would pass over the Acts of Queen Anne, George the Ist,
and George the 2d, and would come down to 1830. He would
direct the attention of their Lordships to the statement of
the Noble Lord ( Denman) in reference to the clause
giving the power of owning letters to Government.
The Noble Lord then recognised the legality cf the power.
B. y a reference to the Acts from Cromwell down to the present
times, and by the courts ofjustice during the last century. this
power was not only legal, but never called in question. Why,
those who felt aggrieved by the exercise of this power (Mr.
Mazzini for instance) did not tes• the legality of it by a resort
to the courts of law. His Noble Friend sa;d that it was an
abominable and disgraceful power, but the effect of the present
Bill was to legalise that power. With respect to the inconsis-
tencies of the present Bill, they had been so fully pointed out
by a Noble Lord who had preceded him, that it would be an
idle waste of time to take up their attention any further upon
them, and he would conclude by giving his most strenuous
opposition to the present Bill, believing that the power which
it done away with was one which should be possessed by every
Government.

Lord DENMAN explained in reference to the opinions
which he had expressed in 1830 upon the subject, and which
had been alluded t. by the Noble Lord who had just sat down as
favourable to the legality of that power. The question of the
legality of the power did not then enter into his consideration.
He never referred to it in a factious manner—it was not a
party question. It affectel all parties. and he threw the blame
equally on all. So far from approving of it, he had always
opposed it as most unconstitutional, and the Noble Duke
opposite could bear testimony to the accuracy of what he
stated. He was opposed to the power on constitutional
grounds when he was Attorney-General, and as he still ente -
tained the same opinion as he did, he could not do otherwise
than oppose the class power now. Perhaps he had done more
to obtain its abolition when he was in office than any other
Attorney-General would have ventured to do.

After a few words of explanation from Lord Brougham, the
Lord Chanc..llor, and Lord Campbell,
The Marquis of NORMANBY admitted having exercised
the power while he was in office, but declared that he never was
entrusted with any power which gave him more pain. The
question, however, for them now to consider was, not the pro-
priety oiabolishing the power, but the particular provisions of
the Noble Earl's Bill. When the question for the abolishing
of the power came before them, he should be prepared to give
it his best consideration. He confessed that, before he came
into office, he was ignorant of the existence of this power, but
now, he thought it was known to almost all the world. He
did not agree in the provisions of the Bill, but, nevertheless,
lie hoped Government would take the matter into their serious
consideration, and see if something could not be done, either to
do away with the power altegether, or to limit its exercise.
Lord STANLEY briefly explained that the practice of the
Home-office was to preserve the warrants with every instru-
ment connected with their exercise.
Earl FI fZWILLIAM, while protesting against the ar-
gument of the Secretary for the Colonies, who treatel the
subject as a police question, and that of his Noble Friend
( Lord Brougham) who regarded it as necessary for the
well-being of the nation, should support the second reading of
the Bill, although he objected to its framing and preamble.
The Earl of CARNARVON opposed the second reading of
the Bill.
The Earl of RADNOR briefly replied in a few words.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
Contents
Non-contents
Majority against the second reading of the Bill —46
THE RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL
(SCOTLAND.)
This Bill went through Committee, and the House resumed.
Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and
Their Lordships adjourned at Ten Minutes past Twelve
o'Clock, till Monday.