The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-03 00:00:00

any alteration in the law by which the secret opening,
detaining, and delaying of letters is conducted." Al-
though the motion was of a general nature, he was pre-
pared to substantiate it, and to snake out the most com-
plete case for inquiry. He stated before that an infrac-
tion of the law had been committed—he repeated that
assertion—the privilege, of whatever nature it might be,
was vested in the Government. He would not fix upon
the Home Secretary of State the whole odium of this
proceeding • the Government must equally share the
blame and the responsibility—(Hear, hear, from Sir B.
Peel and Lord Stanley)—he repeated what he had
already stated—he would not retract a single charge he
had made. He fearlessly asserted, that for the last two
years, a most unscrupulous use was made of the power
which the Act of Parliament was said to vest in the Go-
vernment by opening the letters of different parties.
He would state that it was done to a very great extent,
and he believed that if inquiry were instituted, so far
from its appearing that the Right Hon. Gentleman op-
posite had done what every Secretary of State
had done since the time of Queen Anne, it
would be proved to the satisfaction of every one
that more letters had been opened in this manner during
the last two years than during the ten or twenty years
preceding, and that they had been opened, too, contrary
to law. In the first place, he wished to inquire into that
office in the General Post-office commonly known to
the subordinates of the establishment, as well as by the
superiors of the establishment, as the secret or inner
office. In this office those deeds of darkness took place.
—(Laughter.) Here was the Post-office inquisition
held.—(A laugh.) Sometimes the letters of individuals
were carried there, and from there sent to the Home-
office, where copies were taken of these letters accord-
ing to their contents. Sometimes, as he understood,
whole bags of letters were taken down to this office.
The messenger from the Home-office came in just when
the mail arrived, and called for the bag from Cork, or the
bag from Dublin. The letters were selected, and given
to this individual, and having been examined, they were
distributed, re-sealed to the sorters • those men, of
course, did not know what had taken pace in the secret
letter office, nor how many letters had been detained.
Sometimes the letters were delayed an hour, and some-
times an hour and a half. He had not of course ob-
tained a copy of the warrant, but he understood that at
this moment the letters of Foreign Ministers were
opened and there examined and read. He believed that
the letters to foreign Ministers were at this moment
read and opened by the Right Hon. Baronet. Were
foreign Ministers themselves aware of this ? He (Mr.
Duncombe) must apologise for having spoken in the pre-
vious discussion on this subject disrespectfully of France.
He had said that this inquisitorial system might suit the
air of France or Austria, but it did not agree with the
free air of Britain. The Hon. Member then read an
extract from Galignani's Messenger, in which his words
were quoted, also the words of Monsieur Guizot in the
French Chambers, in which that distinguished statesman
expressly denied that the secrecy of the Post-office had
been violated in France. He (Mr. Duncombe) therefore
in an ample manner begged to apologise to the French
people for the insult he had so unknowingly, but yet so
grievously, cast upon them.—(Hear, hear.) It would
appear that this was a peculiarly English practice ; for
in foreign countries, such as Austria or Italy, where they
opened a letter, they always re-sealed it with the Go-
vernment stamp, and there was no attempt whatever at
concealment ; it was reserved for an-English Post-office
to combine the baseness and meanness of treachery with
the meanness of violation of secresy. This mode
was peculiarly English, however un-English it might
seem in principle. The llonourable Member then
read the extracts from foreign newspapers, showing that
when the Austrian Government had opened letters they
had boldly avowed it by affixing on them the seal of
" the double-headed eagle," and the words " opened by
authority" on them. The Right Hon. Baronet had not
admitted that he had directed Mazzini's letters to be
opened. He admitted that he had issued the warrant for
one of the three mentioned, but, with scrupulous caution,
refused to declare; which. However, the Right Hon.
Baronet had said so much that he must needs say more.
The public would not be satisfied with his mere avowal
of responsibility. (The Hon. Gentleman then read an
extract from a letter of a correspondent of the Morning
Chronicle, and which appeared in this morning's impres-
sion of that paper, stating, that although the Duke of
Wellington had declared that the letters of Mazzini had
not been opened at the instance of the Sardinian Govern-
ment, he would bring forward proofs to show that
letters had been detained, opened, and copied, and given
to the Sardinian embassy, at the request of persons con-
nected with the Sardinian Government; and the same
correspondent asked if the British Government did so
for one Government why not do so for another, and
what signified whether it was one letter or one hundred?
He added that he had several letters opened, and that if
he had anything important to communicate he would
transmit his letters through other channels than through
the spy office. He (Mr. Duncombe) had stated, and it
had been admitted, that one letter had been opened, but
he could prove that fifty or sixty letters had been
opened, and that this system had been going on for two
years in the most unscrupulous manner. He understood
that during the disturbance in the manufacturing dis-
tricts in 1842, scouts had been dispatched from the
General Post office by the Home Secretary to the post-
offices throughout those districts, who opened all sus-
pected letters, and transmitted their contents to the
Right Hon. Baronet.—(Hear, hear.) It was impossible
that they could have a warrant for each opening—they
must have had a general order.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed there was a wholesale opening of
letters on that occasion, and he would furnish proofs
of it. He stated this broadly in his place in
Parliament. He had been further informed that some-
times the messengers from the Post-office demanded the
letters of a particular street, or place—the Albany, for
instance; where the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member
for Edinburgh and the Noble Lord the Member for
Newark resided.—(Laughter.) He had found great dif-
ficulty in obtaining any information on this subject, for
it appeared that since he had last addressed the House
the messengers and officials about the Post-office had
been warned at their peril to keep their lips sealed, so
that they would not utter a word with reference to it. The
other charge was—that the letters of the foreign Minis-
ters had been opened—that the letters of foreigners had
been opened at the instance of foreign Governments—
letters of Austrians, Poles, and Italians. He wanted to
know what was the reason of this? What had we to
do with the unfortunate misunderstandings in Italy at
the present moment? How little was it known in
foreign countries that such treachery had been resorted
to in England ? Mr. Mazzini had received a letter
that day from one of his expatriated countrymen
the son of Admiral Bandieri. He supposed the Right
Hon. Baronet had seen and read this letter.—(Laughter.)
The writer, in it, had congratulated his fellow country-
men on his residence in Great Britain, and added that,
unlike his own country, he might now rely on the in-
tegrity of the British post.—(Laughter.) Poor deluded
man.—(Renewed laughter.) Mr. Mazzini had been con-
gratulated on his arrival in British soil by the in-
dividual who had assisted his escape, and though
that individual might entertain no hostile feel-
ings towards the Austrian Government, his
letters having been copied and transmitted by the Aus-
trian Ambassador to the Austrian Government, he must
be now thrown into a prison. He (Mr. Duncombe) be-
lieved that, at that moment, there were fifty or sixty
individuals immured in the Austrian prisons in conse-
quence of the information communicated to the Austrian
Ambassador by the British Government. The habeas
corpus, it was known, did not exist in Austria, and
hence those unfortunate creatures must remain in
confinement, or, perhaps, be subjected to the torture,
in order to extract a confession from them. The posi-
tion in which the question now stood was neither satis-
factory to the public, creditable to the House, nor ho-
nourable to the Government.—(llear, hear.) The Go-
vernment, when they went so far as to say that a war-
rant had been issued, ought to have told the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; and the Right
Honourable Gentleman should not have endea-
voured to mystify the subject by saying that
he had issued a warrant, but not stating
against whose letters the warrant had been issued. The
warrant, it appeared, no longer existed ; but with re-
gard to Mazzini, there appeared to be just as much
reason now for opening Mazzini's letters, as there ever
had been. He did not believe that the letters of Mazzini
to these individuals had been opened, but he believed
that there could be no doubt that the letters of these three
persons to Mazzini, whose petitions he held, had been
opened. The letters of Lovett to Mazzini had been
opened. lie could prove that Mr. Lovett's letter to
Mazzini had been opened just as certainly as that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had his hat on.—(A laugh.)
One of these letters contained a paragraph stating that
the Emperor Nicholas was expected to arrive in this
country in a few days, and that the writer did not
think that the reception of this distinguished in-
dividual could be very flattering. The very next
morning there appeared in the two Government
prints a denial that the Emperor was com-
ing here ; yet in five days after the announcement,
to the surprise of every one, the Emperor arrived. Now
he did not say that this was a conclusive proof—
(Laughter from the Opposition)—but yet it was an ex-
traordinary coincidence. He knew the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opened and read this letter, and although he could
not prove it in a court of law he would establish a
moral conviction on this point. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman could no longer shroud himself under the
mere delaration of responsibility.—{Hear, hear.) As
the Minister of the Crown, as the paid servant of the
public, as responsible to that House and to the country,
he was bound to give further explanation. The Post-
office enjoyed a monopoly in the transmission of letters,
in fact, parties were punishable for transmitting their
letters through any other channel ; and it was only fair
that the power which it was said the law conferred upon
the Secretary of State to violate secrecy should not be
further acted upon, unless it was absolutely neces-
sary. If they intended to open letters, they must
proclaim their intention to the public, but he could find
no part of the Act of Parliament which justified the
fraud that had been committed by re-sealing the letters
with a counterfeit seal. The Right Hon. Baronet had
attempted to shield himself behind the statute-book, but
he (Mr. I).) would that night hear from the Soli-
citor-General a full statement what the law on this
matter really was—what was the nature of these war-
rants—to what extent the system could be carried—
what was lawful, and what was unlawful.—(Hear.)
He maintained that this was a question that could not
rest where it was.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped he had
made out a good prima facie case for inquiry. It would
not do to entrench themselves behind official silence, nor
would it do to be supported by a majority that appeared
' ready to carry them through an act of this kind, which
was most odious to the people.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK rose to second the motion, but gave
way to Sir James Graham, who rose also.
The question was then put, when
, Sir JAMES GRAHAM rose, and said he felt obliged
to the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath for giving
way on this occasion; and he felt confident the House
would feel that he was, in justice, entitled to a hearing,