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

LONDON, SATURDA MORNING, MAY 31, 1845.

clause defining the law' Made no allusion whatever to the ques-
tion of special or general warrants, and certainly after the
doubts which had beers raised upon this point the 'Noble Earl
ought to have stated, clearly and distinctly, whether it was
necessary that a general or a special warrant should be issued.
It had been admitted by the Lord Chief 'justice that general
warrants could only be used except where a system of espio-
nage was carried on by the Government, and he asked the
House whether they were willing to establish such a system
as this, in preference to at once defining distinctly and clearly
whether a special or a general warrant should be used. Now,
let them look to the second clause, but before directing atten-
tion to that part he must protest against the doctrine laid down
by the Noble Earl, that although the House might have to
alter every word of the Bill, yet if they agreed with the prin-
ciple it enumerated they ought to support the second reading.
Well, then, the second clause enacted that in case any credi-
ble information should be given to the Secretary of State,
that the safety of the Sovereign or the Government was likely
to be endangered, or the peace of the country likely to be dis-
turbed, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to issue
his warrant for the detention or opening of letters, &c. Now,
he was at a loss to understand the real meaning of this clan's'.
Information was to be given to the Secretary of State? W hat
information? Ought it not to be, "If information shall hef
given to the Secretary of State of the acts and proceedings of
any person or persons likely to endanger the peace of the
country. then, &c."
The Earl of R ADNOR—We can alter that in Committee.
Lord STANLEY—Of course they might, but he was dis-
cussing the Bill as it stood, and not a Bill which some other
Noble Lord might subsequently bring in.—( Hear, hear.) He
could not agree with the doctrine that the safety of the Go-
vernment, or peace, or security of the realm were the only con-
siderations which should render it necessary or expedient that
this power should be applied. The Noble Earl excluded al-
together the majority of the cases where the exercise of this
power was necessary for the detection or punishment of crime.
—( Hear, hear.) But what did the Noble Earl mean by the
peace or security of the realm ? Did he mean the internal
peace, or the danger of involving this country in foreign war ?
Now he would not conceal his opinion upon this part of the
question, and although a great deal had been said about the
rights of hospitality in this country, he did not think, under
existing circumstances, that a foreigner should be allowed
to use our Post-office for disturbing the peace of foreign
States, and thus involving thia country in a foreign war?
When the Noble Lord said that the information must be
signed, he evinced an ignorance of the spirit of the original en-
actment, which disentitled his counsel to all weight or consi-
deration. Why, a more effectual mode could not be adopted
for preventing the forwarding of all, except perhaps anony-
mous, communications. With respect to the provision of
sending back the letter with a mark that it had been opened.
a more absurd proposition could not be advanced. It would
tend to give a clue to the operations of Government, frustrate
the object as well as the spirit of the power previous), conceded,
and render nugatory the best efforts of the State. As to the
provision for allowing the party whose letter had been opened
to bring his action at law for damages, and requiring the Secre-
tary or Lord-Lieutenant to give up the information, or a cer-
tified copy of it, would be ineffectual to repress any abuse, and
be faaught only with difficulties and absurdities. He would
suppcse a wrong letter opened by mistake, an invitation to
dinner, a tailor's bill, or other communication equally unim-
portant.—( A laugh.) Well, the Postmaster was to notify that
the letter had been opened by warrant of the Secretary, and
that no necessity existed for its further detention. The Secre-
tary was to give up the information, together with the name of
the informant, and the convivial friend or the tailor allowed to
bring his action for the violation of his secret.—(Laughter. )
Ile admitted that the power
.vested in the Secretary of
State was obnoxious and open to unquestionable abuse,
but he thought, also, there was a sufficient security in the
character of the country, sand in the honour of the individual
Members of both parties in Parliament. Relying on this as-
surance, and wholly doubting the expediency of the Noble
Earl's proposition, he should move that the reading of the Bill
be postponed till that day six months.
Lord DENMAN considered that the measure was of too
vast importance, both as regarded the interests of the com-
munity and the character of that House, to have been dealt
with in the flippant manner adopted by the Noble Lord the
Secretary for the Colonies. He would not pursue that course,
nor adopt the see-saw opinions contained in the report of the
Select Committee—a report evincing only the different views
of each individual member. In 1657 the Post-office was
first established, and in the 12th of Charles It. the same in-
stitution was placed on a more satisfactory basis; but it was
not till the reign of Anne that a provision was made for the
delivery of letters in the universal method subsequently
adopted. He had heard with surprise the Noble Lord state
that the detached suggestions which he had thrown out when
the subject was first brought before Parliament were to he
received as the opinions of the Chief Justice. A Noble
Lord doubted whether every letter which was to be
opened ought not to be described. Why, it was absurd that
every letter could be pointed out ; it was likely that instead of
the particular letter being at once discovered, others might be
opened. Was he, therefore, to be held up as a patron of
espionage, because he gave that view of the subject—because
he said that letters might be opened under the Act of Parlia-
ment, the powers contained in which he condemned as incon-
sistent with the liberty of the people, and which was intended
to cover State delinquencies.—( Hear, hear.) He trusted,
therefore, that the Noble Lord, who could not have heard the
debates which had taken place in that House on the subject,
would not attribute to him that he was an advocate of the sys-
tem of opening letters. It was not fair thus to deal with any
one holding the public office he did, and who, of all men, de-
tested the practice—( Hear)—an odious and hateful practice
which the feelings of all men must especially condemn.
Before they came to a decision it would be well to consider
what would be the course which juries would adopt with respect
to the question of opening letters. They were apt to be car-
ried away by their feelings. The Secretary of State for the
Home Department had stated in the House of Commons that
he had no objection to their regulating the power which the
Act gave him over letters passing through the Post-office. He
( Sir J. Graham) treated the power as a most odious one, and
one which he would wish to get rid of. Then, why should not
the practice be in the hands of Parliament if it was to be exer •
cisod at all ? In the time of Charles 11., no Act was in force
giving the Government this power, but a declaration was issued
by the King, giving his Government the power to open the
letter or letters of an individual passing through
the Post-office. When that Monarch was carousing
with his courtiers, nothing could he more entertaining
than to open the letters of the nobility and gentry. But he did
not think it was fair to invest the power of opening letters in
the present day in the hands of an officer of the Crown, over
every other individual in the land. It was a calumny upon
them that such a subject should have been so frequently brought
forward. They had all felt ashamed of the disgraceful pro.
ceedings which were carried on under the system.—( Hear.)
Mr. Mazzini only discovered by an accident that his letters had
been opened. Had he not made this discovery, it was not un-
likely that it might have remained in secrecy for a number of
years. One hundred years back the power might be rendered
available for the purposes of obstructing an election, or of de-
feating by secret means the Government then in power. From
the memoirs of Lord Malmsbury it appeared that the practice
was then in use. In a letter from Mr. Canning to that
nobleman, he expressed his surprise that his letters had
been opened. Mr. Fox, writing at the commencement of the
French war, said he should have his letters directed by an-
other hand, and sealed with another seal, as they would be
opened at the Post-sffice. The same expressions were made
use of by Mr. Berke and Horace Walpole. In the work to
which he bad alluded, it was stated, that the Minister of
Catherine 11., of Russia, was in the habit of writing letters
with various signatures, which he knew would be opened at
the Post office, and which would have the effect of injuring
his enemies and serving his friends. But he (Lord Denman)
conceived that the power in this country was utterly useless,
and derogatory to the high character of the nation.—( Hear,
hear.) The Committees which had been appointed to con-
eider the subject, had not reported as to any benefits which
were derived from the practice. Information so obtained was
likely to be fallacious, and they were liable to fall into their
own snares. So almost invariably was information obtained
from spies, and the money paid to them for their information
was as invariably thrown away.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore
called upon them to assent to the second reading of
the. Bill which his Noble Friend had introduced.
God forbid that the scenes of 1842 should be ever again re-
peated. They had not, however, been met or put down by the
system which had been reported to of opening and detaining
the letters of those who were supposed to be implieated in
those disturbances. The unhappy men who were engaged in
them were defeated by the firmness of the Government, the
temperance of the police, and the good spirit of the coun-
try. The present Bill might be open to great objections, but
it would prevent many of the abuses which had sprung up
during the existence of the system. If it would only put an
end to the hateful practice of interfering in the concerns of
foreign Governments it would have a beneficial effect. It would
confine the system to our own country. He did net see why
they should lend themselves as police officers for other States.—
( Hear, hear.) He had no doubt but the Noble Lord
opposite had been influenced by the best intentions in the
course he had adopted 1 but when he heard some people
state that there was no great harm even It the individuals on
account of whom the letters had been opened were shot, he
thought their interference was extremely dangerous. On the
same grounds, the Pope, the King of Naples, France, and the
Emperor of Russia, might claim their interference. They
might even by this means be playing into the hands of their
enemies, and betraying the interests of the country ; for in
Spain and Portugal it was not easy to kno v who was in pos-
session of power. He did not believe that Sir Robert Peel,
even, would forget the cheers which accompanied the announce-
ment that the Alien Act was gone. He did not apprehend
that it was necessary to enter into any defence of the
motives which influenced the present Secretaries of State, but
they ought not to forget that very unprincipled men were once
Ministers of State in England, and such men might again be
in office. Even if they did not abuse their trust they had suffli-
tient evidence during the summer months, in the affair of the
Derby stakes, that their underlings would do so. From the
report of an eminent individual, with respect to the individuals
employed in the Post-office, such persons were not proof against
the temptations which were thrown in their way, and the ex-
perience which he himself had enabled him to confirm that
statement. The year 1844 was memorable as being the first
year when letters were opened for a foreign State. It was
a perfectly new and extremely dangerous practice—a thing ut-
terly unknown to the people of England. He himself had not
known that there was any statute on the subject till after con-
siderable difficulty he found that Oliver Cromwell had been the
originator of it. It was to this brutal and hypocritical tyrant,
whose existence night and day had been haunted by an appre-
hension of the evils which his crimes had provoked, that this
un-English practice was to be traced. The Noble Lord
then read extracts from Hume, descriptive 'of the character of
Cromwell, and hoped that the Noble Duke, whose character
had in every respect presented such a contrast, every one of
whose victories was but a march to peace, would signalise his
career still further by lending his influence to destroy and abo-
lish for ever so disgraceful and unconstitutional a power.—
( Hear, hear.) He would call upon him to add to the mea-
sures which had lately been introduced for the conciliation of
Ireland, a measure which would put an end to this abominable
practice.
Lord BROUGHAM did not concur in the severe attack
which had been made on the character of Cromwell. He con-
tended that, with all his faults and failings, he had proposed
and effected many salutary commercial changes. The Isloble
Lord had also been guilty of a misdemeanour, he had introduced
the seria mista jocis, and alluded to the correspondence of
Gramont, in the times of Charles 11., the Merry Monarch.
His Noble and Learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice had
made three charges against the Secret Committee, which
lately sat upon the Post-office. The first was, that the
Committee in their report had not defined the state of the law
on this subject. Now he found, by the first page of the re-
port, that the power had existed ever since the establishment of
the Post office, and had frequently been recognised, and this
he thought was a sufficient charge. The second charge was, that
the Committee had specified or suggested no remedy or refor-
mation whatever in the la..'. All the Committee thought it
was better to leave it for the Legislature to determine what
alterations should be made in the law. The third charge was
that the Committee did not state what had been the utility of
the power. Now, in answer to this charge, he could only state
that, in one part of the report the Committee said that the exercise
of the power had frequently led to detection and punishment of
crime, as well as to the recovery of property. With regard to
the Bill itself, he entirely concurred in what had fallen from the
Noble Lord opposite, who had certainly made a most admir-
able, and, he might add, a strictly legal speech against the

measure.
Lord CAMPBELL little thought, a few years age, that he
should have had occasion to defend his Voblo Friend the Chief