The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT Or the PUBLIC JOURNALS. t claim is, that it shall not be wantonly exercised—
. *TON TnE Evrivino PAVERS OF SATURDAt. exercised for any unworthy purpose—or exercised '
GLOBE4::-Thiaks td Sir James Graham for invest- without using every precaution against injurious
ing the fag-end of s dull, do-little session with nn- consequences either td the pttlic or individuals.
wonted interest! But for his Paul Pry practices at the Now, it is not even insintiatki thiat in Mazzini's
Post-office, Soninua would have re-assumed his reign case the power was exercised wantonly, or with any
in Parliament, and the nation would j,i,;‘,T caught the unworthy motive, and no injury to any human being can
be traced to its exercise. low different the cases of
soft infection. the ninthly iii the Ministerial camp,
and the rumoured resignation or the Cabinet, gave a Franklin's stolen letters, and of the ilfht
4+ftplo meet
fillip to the shinibering piiblic. But the report Start of Lord Norbury's stolen letter : there, breach of Otte,
too good td be true. The quarrel Of Friday —breach of trust, too, without any sanction of legal
was patched up on Monday ; the nation re- authority—was used as the means of exciting sedition,
sumed its nap ; and. Peel was himself again. fomenting public hatred, and calumniating individuals.
The !Rime Secretary excels his Chief. His proceed-
ings are not likely to pass hitt forgetfulness. He
has aroused the public mind to indignation. The topic
in every circle, where politician, or commercial men,
" most do congregate"—in the house, or on the way—
the astounding fact, that the correspondence of the
public, foreign and domestic, which is committed to
the Post-office, in the full confidence that it is there
alike safe from curiosity or cupidity, so far as the sane
dons and penalties of law can render it secure—
that this sanctuary is liable to be entered and ran-
sacked, and selections made from it at the pleasure
of the Home Secretary—that by virtue of a " general
warrant" from him, any and every letter addressed to
any individual may be stopped, detained, opened, read,
and its contents communicated ; a revelation of such
a state of things, so unexpected and alarming, was
well calculated to awaken public attention, and to
arouse the dormant feelings of Englishmen. And it
has done so. The subject was again brought before the
Hcaise of Lords last evening, to be resumed on Thurs-
day evening next in that House. A motion on the
same subject. is also to be brought forward in the
House of Commons in the course of the ensuing week.
Lord Radnor introduced the subject to the House
of Peers on presenting a petition from Mr. Mazzini, si-
milar in terms to that presented to the House of Commons
by Mr. Dunoombe from the same person, complaining of
the detention and opening of his letters by the Post-
' office authorities. The discussion which ensued, though
almost exclusively a legal argument as to the import of
the terms of the statute under which the obnoxious prac-
tice is defended, is invested with extraordinary interest.
A great constitutional right is placed in question. A
privilege only second to the boasted inviolability of an
Englishman's house—be it a palace or a cottage,
a mansion or a hovel=is jeopardised. The impression
of a man's seal has, in England, been hitherto regarded
as securing a letter against every individual except the
person to whom it was directed, or his authorised agents,
as completely as the lock upon a man's house, or upon
his desk, secured them from invasion against all but
himself, or those to whom he entrusted the key,
as the only authorised mode of effecting an entry.
This delusion has passed away. We are now told
that this. is a popular error, which Sir James Graham
has taken upon himself to dispel, and Lord Lynd-
hurst and Lard Brougham,--par nobik fratrum !—to
defend. The old practice—so consonant with the
notions of Englishmen—of respecting the seal of a letter,
or, at least, if it be opened, to apprise the party most
concerned that it has been broken and the contents
of the letter read, is now abolished. Every man
in England—the boasted birth-place and dwelling of
freedom, based on and defended' by constitutional
law—who commits a letter to the Post-office, or who
receives a letter from his correspondent, does so under
the humiliating apprehension that it may be, or has
been, opened and read at the Post-office by some autho-
rised spy of the Home-office—the original seal broken
up, and a counterfeit impression skilfully executed, and
adroitly applied, affixed in the place of the original !
Thelegal point raised last evening is one on which
the Law Lords differ in opinion. It will, however,
be observed that, the affirmative is adopted by Lora
Brougham and Lord Lyndhurst ' • the soundness of
whose opinions will be impugned by their relative po-
sitions. Those, on the other hand, who contend that the
power of detaining and opening letters is limited, and
can only be exercised over a particular letter—specially
described in a warrant issued by the Secretary of State
with reference to that letter, authorising its detention
and inspection—are not open to the objection we have
stated as applicable to the Noble and Learned Lords to
whom we have alluded. The latter view was maintained
by Lord Denman and Lord Campbell. In a doubtful
matter, where far greater ambiguity exists as to the
construction of the words employed by the Legislature,
we should be quite as much disposed to take the law
from the lips of the Lord Chief Justice of England—
cool and dispassionate as his Lordship is in temperament,
and removed as he is, by virtue of his office, from the
turmoil of party strife—than from the Noble and Learned
Lord who occupies the woolsack, whence he would be
hurled by the overthrow of the Cabinet of which he is a
member. With reference to Lord Brougham, whatever
admiration may be excited by his powers of oratory, his
talents as a lawyer were never rated at a high value ;
while Lord Campbell has been regarded by all parties as
a lawyer par excellence. In the present case, however, we
think the construction to be placed on the terms in dis-
pute is sufficiently obvious. Lord Campbell had "carefully
read, and attentively considered, the several Acts under
which the power, exercised by the Secretary of State
was claimed and defended ; and he had no doubt that
they did not confer the power of issuing a general war-
rant" Lord Denman, in the most decided language,
expressed his concurrence in the interpretation of the
law given by. Lord Campbell. "He was of opinion that
every letter which was opened in the Post-office, should
be opened under the authority of an express warrant."
The Lord ChancellOr referred to the Act in support of
his construction of the words the meaning of which was
in dispute, but stopped short of the part of the clause
which made against his argument. The principle of law,
which requires that all penal statutes shall be construed
strictly, and not with a latitude of interpretation against
the parties to be affected by them—the constitutional right
placed in issue—the resemblance which the case bears to
the case of " general warrants," in the celebrated case of
Wijkes, whose 'person and papers were seized by virtue
of
," a general warrant" issued by Lord Halifax as
Secretary, of State, the illegality of which was decided
by an appeal to the constitutional tribunals of the coun-
try,-whatever view, be taken of the question, whether
as to the terms of the statete, or by analogy, as supply-
ing illustration from cases similar to that now in dis-
pute ; all tend to the same conclusion, that the practice
complained of is as unjustifiable in law as it is odious in
the estimation of the public. That it must be abolished
by special enactment, if not voted by Parliament to be a
positive infraction of existing law, is now no longer
doubtful.
STANDARD.—As we anticipated, the Post-office
case is not likely to be let drop. Lord Radnor brought
it . forward last night again in the House of Lords.
There is an obvious reason for all this. Signor Mazzini
in this way obtains nightly an advertisement as "a lite-
rary person "—an advertisement of, which he apparently
stands in need, for we imagine that his contributions
to literature are as much a secret to the rest of
the world as they certainly are to ours Aves ;
and the grievance is moreover an excellent grieVance,
and one that will wear well, for it is impossible
for the Ministers to explain it away without a gross
violation of duty, and unexplained it must remain for
ever odious. All the habits of thinking and feeling,
which we form from our social experience, are repug-
nant to the notion that it can be right to pry into
private letters ; and even the cases in which " the
safety of the commonwealth, the supreme law" has
been pleaded in excuse for violating the secrecy of
private correspondence, have not been uniformly
such as to reconcile us to the irregularity. Dr. Frank-
lin, the Deputy-Postmaster of North America, not only
stole but published private letters in 1773; for the pur-
pose of kindling war between the colonies acid the mother
country ; he pleaded the public good as his apology ;
but he received a chastisement from the Solicitor-Gene-
ral Wedderburne, which few men would undergo for all
the fame, whether as writer. politician, or discoverer, that
attaches to the memory of the American philosopher.
Again, some years ago the Whigs received, and published,
and made use of—if they did not themselves actually
steal—a letter of the late Chief Justice, Lord Norbury—
employing it for the aid of the disafected faction in
Ireland, but of course pretending the public good. Now
these abuses of confidence naturally enough make more
hateful what our habits of private life cause us to detest,
and therefore the grievance is one of the most promising
kind. Still the difficulty remains. What is to be done ?
Nobody ventures to say that, under no circumstances
shall letters be opened in the Post-office ' • and how are
you to find the proper limits ? The law has left
it to the discretion of the Home Secretary to fix those
limits pro re nata, subject, of course, to the responsibi-
lity to which every act of a Minister is subject, and we
do not see how, in this respect, the law can be improved
upon. Lord Campbell, indeed, and Lord Denman, hol
that the exercise of the discretion is hampered to
the extent of requiring a particular warrant for each
letter opened. We must always dispute any opinion
of Lord Denman's with extreme diffidence, and, more
particularly, a legal opinion, but we cannot assent to his
Lordship's doctrine, which seems to us to involve a whole
knot ofpractical contradictions. Let us, for example, sup-
pose, the case of an officer of the Post-office indicted for
opening one of Signor Mazzini's letters. The officer
pleads in his defence the act of Queen Anne, and a
warrant, under the hand and seal of the Home
Secretary, authorising him (the officer) to detain,
open, and copy all letters addressed to the Signor.
The clause in'the Act of Anne is not, as the Morning
Chronicle to-day sagely ! remarks, a penal clause
to be construed strictly ; it is, on the other
hand, a remedial and enlarging clause ; and,
therefore, entitled to the most liberal construc-
tion. Nobody knows this better than Lord
Denman. Now, we ask his Lordship, would it be con-
sistent with such liberal construction to reject the plea
of the prisoner in the case supposed ? But we will put
the case still more strongly against the Home Secre-
tary's right, and suppose that the warrant was directed
to the detention and examination of a single letter
to Mr. Mazzini ; still the officer would be safe in
detaining all the letters addressed to that individual,
because- each might be the letter anticipated; and upon
whatever letter he might be indicted the warrant would
be a good defence, for the prisoner would be in a
condition to say that that was the letter intended.
Mr. Mazzini says that in the course of two or
three, months he received seventy letters, which
would be, on the average of post days, three a day
at the least. How could a, warrant distinguish the
letter suspected out of three ? We, alas, know those
who sometimes receive twenty times, and even
thirty times three letters in the day. Now suppose, ab-
sit omen, any of us, who give such work to the letter-
carriers, suspected of seditious practices. How could a
warrant, applicable to' a single letter only, afford the
means of sifting our correspondence? The question of
law was, however, too completely disposed of by the
arguments of Lord Brougham and the Chancellor to
Permit that we say more about it. The power exists
legally in the Government, to the full extent or
while Sir James Graham has exercised it, and probably
it must continue to exist, if for no other reason, to detet
men from using. the Post-office as the vehicle of criminal
correirpontieutc. What the publit has a right to

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.
GUILDHALL.)

Mr. Robert Reeves, a pawnbroker, carrying on busi-
ness in Redcross-street, Cripplegate, appeared before
Messrs. Aldermen T. Johnson and Hooper, to answer an
information filed against him by a man named M‘Callan,
a common informer, for having exacted a larger amount
of interest than was allowed by the Pawnbrokers' Act, to
which offence he pleaded not guilty ; and Mr. Hum-
phries, the solicitor, attended to defend him.
James Hurst stated, that on the 27th ult. he was en-
trusted with a duplicate to redeem two books, which
were in pledge for 45., in the name of Ann Parker, from
the 15th of April, 1843. Ile tendered ss. as payment,
and received 7d. as change, sd. being charged as interest,
which was an overcharge, 3id. and four-tenths of a far-
thing being the legal and just amount of interest due on
the loan.

M'Callan having stated that that was all the evidence
he had against the defendant,
Mr. Humphries proceeded to cross-examine the witness,
from which it will be pretty well seen the kind of crea-
tures that so callously pounce upon and victimise timid
tradesmen, who prefer compromising the affair to being
dragged before the public, and their affairs made known
sn a police-court.
Mr. Humphries—Now, Mr. Hurst, do you know this
Miss Anne Parker—did you ever see her ? Witness--
No, I do not.

Mr. Humphries—But you have redeemed several
pledges in the name of Anne Parker ? Witness—Yes,
I have ; perhaps about four.
Mr. Humphries—What are you by trade ? Witness
—A bookbinder.

Mr. Humphries—But you don't work at the book-
binding now ? Witness—No, Ido not ; lam painting
and decorating Mr. M'Callan's house. •
Mr. Humphries—Oh, indeed ; you are then a painter
and decorator, besides being a bookbinder. Pray, in
what capacity did you start in the world ? Witness—
In a little dragooning—(Laughter)—about seven years
ago.
Mr. Humphries—And you then turned a life-guards-
man, and afterwards a policeman. -Witness—Exactly
so.—(Much laughter.)
Mr. Humphries—ln fact, within the space of seven
years, you have been a dragoon, a life-guardsman,
policeman, painter and decorator, bookbinder, and,
above all, a common informer's witness.—(Continued
laughter.) Witness (with an impudent air)—Just so, I
can turn my hand to anything.—(Roars of laughter.)
Mr. Humphries—Not a doubt of it, sir. You have no
regular occupation, either in the bookbinding, painting,
or soldiering ? Witness—None whatever ; I get my
living the best way I can.
Mr. Humphries—Now, how does M'Callan pay you ?
—by the job ? Witness—No, by the lump.
Mr. Humphries—How much did you get for the day
you called at the defendant's? Witness—five shillings.
I called at four other pawnbrokers on the same day.
Mr. Humphries—And you go out in the hope of the
unfortunate pawnbrokers making a slight overcharge, so
that you may lay an information against them? Wit-
ness—lf they charge too much I certainly do inform
against them.
Mr. Humphries—You have been in Mr. M'Callan's
employ some time, and given evidence in numerous cases?
Witness—l have so.

Mr. Humphries—ln fact, you are paid for swearing,
are you not? and are also paid before you do swew.
Witness—l am generally paid before I give evidence.
Mr. Humphries then in a very spirited manner ad-
dressed the Bench, and submitted that the defendant
could not be convicted upon the evidence of a man like
Hurst. They proceeded quite in a systematic manner
to ensnare their victims, and in the hope of convicting
them, it was evident that they would strain their con-
sciences to the utmost to answer their purpose.
The Magistrates then consulted together, and after a
few minutes

Mr Alderman JOHNSON said that they fined the de-
fendant 10s., but remarked the worthy Alderman, nol
one fraction of it will be allowed to the informer.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

Wm. Dunn, Esq., of Tredegar-square, and Henry Nor-
ton, Esq., of Russell-square, gentlemen, were brought
before Mr. Hardwick, charged with having assaulted
Mr. Wiltshire, confectioner, 332, Oxford-street. There
was a second charge against Dunn for having also as-
saulted the police.
From the statement of Mr. Wiltshire, it appeared that
the defendants brought two females into his shop the
previous evening to treat them to some pastry. The
conduct of the defendants while in the shop was noisy
and unbecoming, and when one of them began beating with
his whip upon the table, it was necessary to make an ap
peal to them to behave themselves with more propriety.
The defendants demanded to know what they had to pay,
and when told the price of the delicacies they had con-
sumed was 4s. 6d., one of them told Mr. Willshirehe
was a liar. Mr. Willshire was eventually paid, but vias
subjected to great abuse, and ultimately he was struck
by Mr. Dunn with his whip. Assistance was called,
and some of the journeymen came to protect their mas-
ter, but they could not interfere time enough to prevent
Mr. Wiltshire from being again beaten with the whip,
and also struck by Mr. Norton. In consequence of this
violent outrage the police were called, and then the de-
fendants made their escape out of the shop, but they
were pursued and taken into custody. When poliCe-
constable C 68 laid hold of Mr. Dunn, he was asked
whether he had any charge against him, and on being
told he had none, but that Mr. Wiltshire had insisted
on being released, and gave the constable a smart push
or blow in order to effect his object. It was further
stated that the defendant did not appear to be sober.:
The defendants said they were quite sober. They had
been dining at Verrey's, and had drank tot more than
about two bottles and a half of wine, and this would
not make them drunk, as Mr. Verrey would prove, if
sent for. With respect to the charge, they said the
affray had arisen in consequence of some remarks having
been made on the behaviour of the ladies who were then
under their protection, and whom they had just met
with in Regent-street, and at their solicitation treated to
some refreshment.

Mr. HARDWICK said the evidence to establish an
assault on the police was sufficient to satisfy him, as
well as that a gross assault had also been committed
on the complainant. The law gave magistrates a power
to commit at once to the House of Correction, where a
charge of assault was proved on a constable, and in
the case of a poor and uneducated man this power was
frequently made use of. Persons of station and ethica-
tion guilty of the same misconduct, were less entitled to
forbearance, for they had the means of knowing their
duty to society, and the necessity for respecting the
laws, which persons in an humbler station had not. If
the defendants had been assaulted they would have 4-
plied for protection to the police, and it was therefore
but right that the police should be protected in their
turn. Taking the whole of the charge into account he
was very much inclined to think that a money penalty
was an inadequate punishment, and that it was his ditty
to commit at once to the Muse of Correction.
Mr Dunn exhibited undisguised alarm at this intima-
tion, expressed his sorrow for what had occurred, and
added that if any assault had been committed on the
police, which he certainly never intended to commit, it
was of a very slight character.
Mr. HARDWICK said the slightness of the assault was
the only circumstance of mitigation in the case. He de-
sired it to be understood that when the police were sub-
jected to ill-usage in the execution of their duty, it was
his determination to inflict the punishment of imprison-
ment, and not to impose, a fine, and neither the rank or
station of parties should shield them from the penalty of
their misconduct.

Mr. IlAnDwicic then adjudged Mr. Dunn to pay 51.
for the assault on Mr. Wiltshire, and Si. for the assault
on the police. Mr. Norton was fined st= for the assault
on Mr. Willshire.—The fines, 151. in amount, were im-
mediately paid.
The parish authorities of St. James's brought John
Horne Diamond, a person dressed in handsome sailor's
clothes, before Mr. Hardwick, for having deserted his
his wife and children.

It was stated that the wife was the daughter of a
clergyman named Pascoe, who died suddenly a few years
ago in the pulpit while preaching a charity sermon ; up-
wards of 9,0002 was collected for the support of the
widow and her children, one of whom was the present
complainant, who having picked up the defendant, a
common sailor, married him, and gave him the control
of some hundreds of pounds, which fell to her share.
Her husband soon squandered the whole of the money
by the most reckless profligacy, and he then abandoned
her and went to sea. The wife had suffered very great
privations, and: had been obliged to have recourse to the
parish. The husband, who had never contributed a
farthing towards the support of his family, recently re-
turned from sea, and took up his quarters in the next
street to where the wife lived ; but he never made the
smallest inquiry about her, though he was very particu-
lar in inquiries about the mother, who lived on the pro-
ceeds of part of the charitable fund, at whose death a
portion was likely to come to his wife.
The defendant said he had not the means of supporting
his wife.

Mr. Buzzard, the vestry-clerk, said the man came
home with money, spent it upon himself, and then went
another voyage.
Mr. lIARDWICK said no punishment could be too great
for such unprincipled and unfeeling conduct. He should
go as far as the law allowed, and send the defendant at
once to the House of Correction for three months.
THAMES POLICE.

Mr. J. Cockburn Selaney, who stands charged on sus-
picion of having caused the death of his wife, by admi-
nistering to her a dose of prussic acid, on Saturday, the
Bth inst., was brought up on remand before Mr. Broderip.
When the prisoner was brought up yesterday he ap-
peared in good spirits, and a great number of respectable
persons attended to witness the proceedings.
Mr. Hayward, clerk to the Solicitor to the Treasury,
attended on the part of the prosecution, and requested
to have the case remanded, as the Treasury had only
then given instructions to proceed upon it. It would be
impossible, he said, to be prepared with sufficient evi-
dence at the next session ensuing, and he requested that
the witnesses might be bound over to appear at the Au-
gust sessions.
Mr. Clarkson, on the part of the prisoner, had no ob-
jection to the application. On the contrary, he was rather
pleased that it had been made, as both he and his client
were anxious tO have the case investigated with the