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

certain peraons. and they ought to have further informas
tion on the subject.—(Cheers.) He would do his heat
to arrest this system of prying Leo letters on the part, of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He
toll them that this warrant no lenger exiattel, but he did
not tell them when it ceased to exist, nor svben it was
issued. He should like to see a copy of that warrant,
and if the House did see it they would
ahle to ascertain to a born it was ad
dressed. and oh %%hese authority this extraordinary
proceeding had been adopted. The Right Hon. Gentle-
men said that no other let'- rs had been oeened. lie
(Mr. T. Duecembe) "aid Oat the ',tiers of Lovett,
Mazzini, and the other gentletuer, had been opened,
read, and examined, at the l'ost-talice, and that they
had afterweirla been returned. A copy of that warrant
onget to be liCore the House of Gannon-, and he
sh-aild therefore inttve that a cepy of that warrant
be laid before the House. -(Cries of " Order, order
from the Ministerial henehes, answered by cheers from
the Oppesitioe.) Weil, :hen, in order to give Hon.
Members an orient urtity e f expressing. their opinion, he
world move that V,e liaise do new adjourn—(t eas)
fled he woull ink, the sense of the House, it he steed
afore. on the qu •stion ef the manner in which the Go-
vernment had interfersd with the roost sacred privileges
of the suleieet.
Mr. WALLACE said that alien the Post-offiee Act
had pis ed, in 1837, the Right Hew Member for Taun-
ton had essured the I the a 1 contain eoiliing
but a c ,nsolidetion of the former Acts. The Moose be-
lieved thst it wes a censelidatien only, and not an :the-
ration. The wen' atith wiahs this interference with
1. tiers had been introdacsd secretly, ate( without tha
knewledge ef Members. The Bill hal b- en passed
under the id .a that it eas only a fah' tonselidiciou,
whereas it w tinf<er an.l unjust alteration -of the
former Act. With regnel to the pracsiee, it e s sloe, rg
new. He had frequently drawa the atteteieti itf the
Moose to it. It was one of the aceusaiona which he
had been in the hsltit of tringingfoewael year after year,
%Odle he was egiteting the question of P..st office reform.
The Secretary of State had excused tha practice, tied he
(Mr. Wallace) believed that et the prevent niemeet-there
was;
.a leg-alert machintry tit the Po•t-offlee ion the per-
nese. There wes a roren set apart tsar opening letters
and examining/them, and he believed that p rs,tis had
been sect abroad to study in' the schte I o é hew
tool), n,fold, and reseal letters in the Post tellee tt L Aldose
He maintained that the same perfect and entire freedom
which was extended to a man's p -Nen should be extended
to his correspoudonee. aim:teal the po.ver to open
letters was given in the Act of Paalitueent ; but he
deeied that it ought to be there. At the time when
franking was the 'privilege of Members, he. (Mr. Wallace)
wrote on the ourside of all his franks and letters " llease
to reseal and forward this lattCr after yoti have read it, and
this.
do not . burn it,"—(Loiul- laeghter)—and many of
his. letters were subsequently re-endorsed—for they had
been shown to him by their recipienta---"this is one of
Mr. Wallace's (the Member for Greetiock) own letters,
be sure and forward it."—(Great laughter.) lie 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 nut particu-
larly characterise.
• Mr. LABOUCHERE said, as so heavy a charge had
been brought against him—for it was in the year 183 G,
when he was in office, awl by the department of hich he
was at the head, that the consolidation of the Post-lace
Acts was effected, be .was sure the House would in-
dulge him for a few moments, whilst he said a few a ords
in explanation and in self-vindication. ifs Hen. Friend
said he at that time gave a power to the Secretary of
State—(Cries of " No, no ")—so he (Mr. Labouehere)
had understood his Hon. Friend. Now he had a
distinct recollection of what the hew was before the con-
solidation, and his belief was that such power resisted
at that time, and had existed for years arid years before.
At that time he did what he professed ; he lid not alter
the law, but he consolidated all the laws having tiny rela-
tien 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
he a sufficient guarantee for its proper exereiee. He
admitted the responsibility was great. but still he could
easily imagine cases where the necessity for such a
power would he imminent.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Treasury benches.) He 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 he 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 eases
could only and ought only to have reference to our own
domestic affairs, red he was sadly afraid that home
affairs could not be statad as the rause for the present
interference.—(Cheers.) If the Right Hon. Gentleman
(Sir J. Graham) would only state that the poaer had
been exercised on account of, and s&ely for, home
ff4irs, the matter. in his opinion, ettuld easily be settled.
—(Hear, hear.) If he did not do this, there could only
he one inference that the letters were opened. not for an
honest English purpose, but for a discretable foreign
or:e.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. WARBURTON said the words in the Act were
the same, as those.
- Mr. MTME —No, they are not the srme. Here is the
old Act; read the words your'selt.—(Mr. Hemet here
handed the old Act to the Hon. Member for Kenlel.)
Mr. WARBURTON (having read the clariee)—Then,
he must say, he liked those words better, for actording
to this old Act, a warrant was requite d for
each separate opening, det9itien, 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 be thotight 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 'lon. 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 net inform
the House whether he acted legally or not.—(Cheers,
cries of " Order, order," and " Spoke, spoke.")
Mr. ROEBUCK thought with the Riaht Hon. .Gen-
tleman, the Member fur 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

w arrant.
Mr. HUME had never heard it avowed by any
Minister before that he had given any authority whatever
.or opening private letters which were passing
ihrough the Post-office. He was of opinion, that
notwithstanding what had fallen from his lion. Friend,
that in a free country such a privilege ought not to exist.
(Cheers.) They were told that the slave the moment
ne 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 lion. Gentleman
had issued had been in existence ? It might have
been existing for many months past. Why ahould
such a system of esp:onage 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 front 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 ae
that which had been taken advantage of by the Right
Hon. 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 mes:,' discreditable and disgraceful one, and the
Right Hon. Baronet might depend upon it that if he 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 bad been required of him.
Mr. F. FRENCH said it was evident from the answer
or the Right Hon. Baronet, that both he and the Post•
office authorities had been guilty of misdemeanour on
three or four occasions, for it roust be evident to every
one, from the answer which had been given by the
Right Hon. Baronet, that only one warrant had been
issued, inasmuch as he had stated that " the " warrant
had been withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON begged to call the attention of the
House to the words of the Act of Parliament. It was
certainly a most unconstitutional exercise of power, and
most unpopular, to open the letters in the Post-office,
and therefore the Act of Parliament should be construed
strictly. He w anted, to know from the Government and
law-officers of the Crown what interpretation they
would put on the Act of Parliament. -There was a
Freat distinction between warrants to open particular
letters which would pass through the Post-office on a
particular day, and general warrants to open particular
letters, directed to a particular individual.—(Hear.) The
House should recollect what a struggle there was about
general warrants as to service. He would call the atter.L
tion of the House to the two Acts of Parliament on the
subject. The first Act was the 9th of &nue, chap. 10,
sec. 40, and the words of it were—" Except by express
warrant in writing, under the hand of one of her Ma-
jesty'e principal Secretaries of State for every such open-
ing, detention, or delay. Could any one, giving a fair in
ti-rpretation to those words, say that it meant that you
were to have a warrant to be kept in force till revoked to
open all letters coming in a particular handwriting. to a
particular individual.--(Hear.) Now let them see bow
this was altered by the statute proposed by the
Hon. Metner fur Taunton. The House would recollect
that that Act of Parliament- was an Act passed merely
to consolidate Post•offiCe Acts. The words in that Act
were, " to op ‘II, de :am, or delay letters in obed'ence to an
express war, ant." Now what was meant by an expre-s
warrant—it meant an express warrant to open letters, by
. writing under the hand of one of the principal
Secretaries of- State. all matters they must
look back to the Acts of Parliament' which existed