The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-01 00:00:00

POST-OFFICE SPY SYSTEM.

Captain PECH ELL i.res•nted a petition complaining of the
opening of Mr. Duncombe's letters, and praying for fParlia-
mentary inquiry.

FOREIGN ESPIONAGE.

Mr. MILNER GIB`,ON presented a petition from a foreign
gentleman re-ident in this country, bit whose name, from the
noise in the Howe and in the gallery, it was impossible
to hear, praying the 'louse to interfere with the powers of
the Execu ivy Government when exercised in c :-operation with
foreign Governments in their endeavours to control the actions
of foreigners resident in this country. He stated, that it the
proceedings of foreigners in this country were to be regulated
by the rules adopted by the Austrian Government, it must put
an tnd to all freedom of discussion on political t,opics,
and of that liberty which was the peculiar boa-t of England.
That it would further the ends of foreign espionage, and would
render nugatory all the efforts to promote freedom in the
world, and would convert that which was merely intended for
legitim tte cffi.rts fur the improvement of a country into a
colourable at tof cons, iracy and high trea,on. He, therefore,
prayed the House to interfere, and in some way modify the use
of the pourers of the k xecutive Government in their control
over foreigners, and collusion with foreign States.
MARRIAGE (IRELAND) ACT.
Sir T. FREM ANTLE said, that with regard to the
question which had been asked by the Hon. Member for
Belfast (Mr. Ross), as to whether the Government in-
tended to amend the Act with regard to mixed
marriages, celebrated by Roman Catholic clergymen,
he begged to say that it wzs the intention of the Government
to bring in a Bill to amend that Act ; but as the Bill had not
yet come into operation, he thought it would be better to wait
and see how it would work.

MR. ROEBUCK AND THE ABSENT IRISH
111E3113E11S.

Mr. E. B. ROCHE said that he had a question to ask
of the lion. and Learned Member for Bath, for the purpose of
asking which he had come expressly from lreland.—( Laughter.)
As this was a question referring to a matter in which he felt
that his character as a Member of that House, and as a gentle-
man, was at stake, he trusted he was not asking too
much of the House in begging to be allowed
to make a few preliminary remarks by way
of explanation of the greurols o❑ which he asked Hear,
hear.) A very s',ort tune since he saw with considerable sur-
prise a si•ati:h at.ribute.l to the Hon. Gentleman in the lime:
newspapi-r.—( Order, order. )
The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member was irregular
in referring to a newspaper for what was said in that House in
a previous debate.
Mr. ROCIIE—WeII, then, I heard of a speech which
has been attributed to the lion. and Learned Gentleman,
in which I find that he used the following words, in alluding
to a large body of the Irish Members :—" They have run away
from their posta."—(Order, order.)
The SPEAKER—It is quite evident the Hon. Gentle-
man is referring to a speech made by the lion. and Learned
Member for Bath during the present session, and it is quite
irregular for any H .n. Gentleman to allude to a previous de-
bate dui log the same session.

Mr. R6CIIE —I may be permitted, at any rate, to ask this
question. Certain ob..,!rvatioria I understand were made—
supno,ing that they were made—( Cries of " Order, order.")
The SPEAKER said he was sure the House would feel
that it was quite impossib'e that the Hon. Member could be
allowed to refer to any worth spoken in a previous debate.
POST-OFFICE ESPIONAGE.

On the reading of the order of the day for going into a Com-
mittee of Ways arid Means,
Mr. DUN COM BE rote to move, " That certain officers be-
longing to her Majesty's Post-office do attend this House at
its next meeting, fur the purpose of informing this Howe under
what authority they had been parties to the detaining, delaying,
or opening any post letters of Thomas Slingsby Duneombe,
Esvi.e, a Member of this House." The Honourable
Member said he very much regretted that the little
progress which had been made in public business on
Tuesday evening last had prevented him from bringing for-
ward the motion of which he had given notice. In
again calling, as he felt himself compelled to do, the
attention of the House to the very grave subject which had
already occupied too much of its time, he thought that he
should be able to prove that no blame on account of that occu-
pation of time was attributable to himself. Not being able
to bring the question forward the other evening, he had
no alternative but to take the earliest opportunity of
setting this question again fairly befrre the public. Now what
occurred on a former occasion ? Ile was told, in the first place,
that he had no evidence at all of his letters having
been intercepted at the Post-office; and, secondly, that
even if he did possess information enabling him to
prove that interception of his letters had taken place,
that information could only have been obtained by corrupting
the officers of thet establishment. The Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Newark (Lord J. Manners), for whom he entertained
a deep resieet, said that if what he had stated was true he
was a degraded man ; while the Hon. Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford said that no innocent man would complain
of the opening of his letters. He need not state what was the
inference to be drawn from the latter statement. If, however,
the House could give him ;he opportunity—and even after the
display of injustice which took place on the previous evening,
he still hoped they would not refuse it—he would prove
that he was innocent as regarded the imputation which hung
over him on account of the opening of his letters.
Now he asked, what had occurred in reference to this subject?
He did the other evening, and he (lid new, altogether disclaim
any personal hostility to any individual on the opposite benches.
What he said then he would again state, that whatever responsi-
bi ity attached to the fact of having opened his letters, mat be
share) by all of her Majesty's 'Ministers, that they must all bear an
equal share of responsibility with respect to it.—( Hear, hear.)
He was obliged to address himself to the Right Hon. Baronet
the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because if
any person issued a warrant for that opening of his letters, he
roust have been the person who issued it. It that warrant were
issued, he (Mi. Duncombe) would not believe it was done
with the knowledge or sanction of the Right Hon. Gentleman
at the head of her Majesty's Ministers. He would not
now believe that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, knew any thing at all about the matter ?
he did not believe that the flight Honourable Gentleman was
ever consulted as to whether his letters should be opened
or not ; he acquitted him entirely of it, and he did
not believe that if he had known it, he would have
permitted it. Whatever offence his observations gave
thisHrienarrs,t hear.)
on
t,,oareth.at bench, the whole of the Ministry must
WhNeow,hew
hlitnamreofenrgentcheemtn.presentedhathad oc-
curredt
o
this House the petition of M. hlazaini, he nt. h
nothing at all of his letters having been opecneerda.m certainly
faren knew
was concerned the House should now know al as he
truth. When he presented M. Mazzini's petition he knew
nothing of the opening of his letters, he did not even
suspect that the Government would have perpetrated so

• mean and base an act as that of opening his letters. That
was on the 14th of June. He said this in answer to the Hon.
Member for Pontefract, because that Hon. Gentleman said that
he (Mr. Duncombe) must have known when he presented
M. Mazzitii•s petition that his letters had been opened.
He knew nothing cf the sort. On the e4th of June
ve prevented the petition of M. Stolzman ; he knew
nothing even then, and did not suspect that his letters had
been stopped. On the 2d of July he received some informa-
tion from M. Mazzini in the interim, with respect to
certain parties connected with the Post-officv. Ile
understood there was a general rumour, a common
subject of conversation in the establishment, which was simply
this,—that the clerks and sorters, and sub. sorters, were in the
habit of saying, " What is the use of Mr. Duncombe's making
a bother about the letters of foreigners, he had much better
look after the villainy that is being perpetrated
towards his own." And he should be able to prove that if
they would allow him the opportunity of a Committee. On
hearing this he certainly pricked up his cars—(Laughter)—he
asked M. Mazzini if he could produce the persons who could
prove these conversations. He said he could, but told
him that, in the meantime, he ( Mr. Duncombe) had
better make a motion in the House for a Committee of
inquiry into the working of the inner or secret office of the
Post-office. He therefore gave notice of a motion of that sort,
and said that if he could only get a Committee of Inquiry,
that lie would ascertain the names of parties, which were
notorious in the Post-office, and that he would have
the whole thing ont. He pre notice of a
motion of inquiry into the working of this inner
office, and into the duties of the persons employed in it,
with a view of ascertaining by what authority they acted.
Well, how was that met? He had said, in introducing that motion,
that the question was nu longer between M. Mazzini and the
Government—it was no longer between him and the Right
Honourable:, Baronet—but it was a question between the
people of England and her Majesty's Ministers, and that the
people wished to know whether their letters were tha property of
the Secretary of State or not. The Right Hon. ilaronetthen said
that he agreed with him ( Mr. Duncombe) that the question
had gone so far that it could not stop there— that it was a
question between the Cove nment and the people of England,
and that it was quite right that the people of England should be
satisfied on the point. How did he propose to satisfy them ?
Instead of adopting the proposal made by him (Mr. Dun-
com he ), he moved an amendment that. a Secret Committee should
be appointed. Tne Right lion. Gentleman named that Corn-
mitts e— he named his own jury—reserving to himself, at the
same time, the right of appeal from the decision of that tri-
bunal, and of course he ( Mr. Duncombe) reserved to himself
equally tke right of appeal; and in exercise of that right he
had called the attention of the House, as early as he could during
the present session, the report being pr. rented late in the last
session, to what he considered the unsatisfactory and evasive
character of that report. In doing so he had subjected him-
self to a number of insinuations, and he could _et no satisfaction
whatever on the subject Amongst those insinuations the Hoe.
Member for Pontefract had told hint (Mr. Luucombe) that
his name had been associated with persons who had been under
the sentence of the law. He asked the Hon. Member to name
them, and he mentioned Mr. Lovett. Well, what was the case
of Mr. Lovett? He (Mr. Duncombe) certainly had taken
up. his cause, and the consequence was, that during the
incarceration of Messrs. Lovett and Collins at Warwick,
their treatment was modified, and, instead of b• ing
treated as felons, they were treated as political prisoners
ought to be treated. But would any one say that that
was a justification of the Government opening his letters? Be-
fore that time he had never heard of Messrs. Lovett and
Collins. Then the Hon. and Learned Member for Bute had
, stated that he (Mr. Duncombe) had been in correspon-
dence with certain persons who had threatened to
burn the town of Sheffield. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
defended those individuals. He was their counsel, and
he defended them with so much ability, that they got four
years' incarceration in the House of Correction.—( Loud
laughter.) Was there any proof that he (Mr. Duncombe)
was connected with tho-e individuals? He had never heard
their names, nor had he ever held the slightest coerce). ndenee
with them. Was there in that, then, any grotaisi for
opening his letters? The first time he had ever been
connected with the Chartist part) was in le4l, just previous
to the general election, when he presented a petition tor them,
praying Inc an amnesty to all political prisoners, and signed by
1,7v0,000 individuals. Those political prisoners had been
imprisoned for political offences etimmitted during the period
that his Noble Friend was in office. In the year 1641, in
the month of June or July, he (Mr. Duncombe) moved an
humble address, to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty
would be graciously pleased to order the ease of those
prisoners should be taken into consideration with a view to
their release. Well, what was the result? The House was
equally divided upon the motion, and upon the casting vote of
the Speaker that address was rejected. Was that any reason
why his letters should have been opened?—( Hear, and a laugh.)
Then, again, in the year 1842, in the month of May, he pre-
sented a petition upon the condition of the nation, signed by
3,300,000 members of the working-cla•ses. There were great
differences of opinion as to the truth of the allegations con-
tained in that petition ; many said that the expres-
sions contained in it were fooli,h and indi erect, and that
they could not be proved. Perhaps so ; but the petitioners
Erased to be called to the bar of that House, but that prayer
was rejected. Next, in the year 1812, an outbreak and
strike took place in Staffordshire; and the opinion
expressed upon that occasion by the Right lion. Baronet the
Secretary fur the Home Department was, that he thought the
whole thing had been very much exaggerated, and that there
was nothing whatever political in it.—( Hear, hear.) Now, he
( Mr. Duncombe) apprehended that his letters were opened
upon political grounds, and in connexion with supposed political
offenders-- he assumed that such was the case. Weil, in 1842,
tne manufactu ing districts were in a frightfully disturbed
state ; but at that time the conduct of the working
classes was extremely creditable to them. For three (lays it had
been stated that Manchester vas in possession of what was
called the mob ; but notwithstanding that, such was the re-
spect and regard of the eeople for private property, that not
even a pane of glass was broken. Therefore there could have
been no reason for opening his letters then ; yet he was in
a position to trove that at that very time his letters had been
opened at the General Post-office. Ile had new with him in
the Howe sonic letter' he had received at that time;
but there were no letters of a treasonable character
amongst them, so that if any such were sent to
him at that time, the Right Honourable Bari net
must have kept them himself.—( Great laughter.)
Amongst the letters of a " suspicions-looking character " that
he then received—( A laugh)—he n w held one in his hand,
which certainly appeared as if, to use the technical phrase, it
had been " operated upon"—( Loud laughter)—and if closely
examitted, he believed there could be no doubt that It
had been " ()iterated" upon.—( Laughter.) That letterhe would
now read; it was from Mr. Feargus O'Connor—( A laugh)—
and was written during the Nottingham election, when Mr.
Sturge was a candidate for that borough. The Honourable
Member then read the letter, the substance of which
was to this effect—" I snatch a moment from the excite-
ment of the day to send you a word or two upon what is doing
here. There never was so much excitement— so much moral ex-
citement as is to be witnessed here —( Laughter.) And but for
it the Tories would be triumphant here.—( Laughter.) A num-
ber of men hate come in here from Derbyshire, sent
in by the Tories, to personate, not dead, but living
voters.—( Loud laughter. , But they have been detected,
though trying to represent the real Simon Pure.—( Laughter. )
I must now stop, in order to make all right here, and then be
off to a vil:age, 4 miles off, to make all right there." The writer
then called attention to a placard he inclosed, and concluded by
saying that, " if flobhouse was the author of it. he should never
again venture to show his nose in Nottingham."—( Laughter.)
That was the sort of correspondence which he had re.
ceived (luring the whole of that time. In the course of
184 d he had no communication whatever with Mr.
Feargus O'Connor; and, therefore, he should be glad
to know upon what grounds his letters were opened.
—( Hear.) If he could prove that they had been opened
by the servants of the Post-suffice, let them show
their authority for opening his letters.— ( Hear, hear. )
If they produced the authority, then it would be
for them to justify it. Either the Government
had issued warrants for the opening of his letters, or they had
been opened without warrants. —( Hear, hear. ) If they had
been opened without a warrant, then, no doubt, a breach of
privilege had been committed. Ile did not now, nor did he
.on the former occasion crake this a question of privilege. Thar
was a question which the House would decide when it heard the
evidence. They would then judge whether a breacii of privi-
lege had been committed or not.—( Hear.) But it was his
firm conviction that if his letters, or the letters of any other
Member of the House, had been opened at the Post-office,
there could be no doubt that a breach of privilege had been
committed in his person. That was the actual state of the
question.—( Hear, hear. ) He was surprised that the Com-
mittee, which gave itself so much trouble to enter into matters
of deep and antiquarian research, had overlooked the case
which came under the cognisance of the. House in 1689. He
was surprised the.; had not discovered that remarkable case, as
it bore pointedly upon that which he was now forcing their at-
tention o.—( Hear, hear.) A complaint was made to the House
that the letters of a Member named Thompson were opened at
Hull by the order of a military Celonel. The allegations of
Thompson's petition were inquired into, and the House came
to the resolution, on the 14th of August, 1689, that the seizing
detaining, and opening of the letters written by, or addressed to,
a Member of Parliament, was a breach of privilege and a
gross misdemeanor on the part of any officer, military or civil, in
the service of the Crown.—( Cheers.) lii 1735 this House came
to a resolution almost unanimous, that it was a breach of the
privileges of Parliament to inspect or look into the letters of
any Member of the House of Commons, whether written by
him or addressed to him.—( Cheers.) Now, in the year 1822
a question of a similar kind was brought before the House by
his lion. Friend the Member for Cumberland. lie did not
at the time agree with his lion. Friend, for he did not think
that a breach of privilege had been committed. The case was
this, the Hon. Member for Cumberland directed a letter to a
prisoner in Manchester gaol, and that letter was opened by the
gaoler. His Hon. Friend brought the matter before the
House as a breach of privil ge. But on looking over the de-
bates he ( Mr. Duncombe) cou'd not say that in that case any
breach of privilege had been committed, because it was quite
clear, according to the law, that letters addressed to a prisoner
in a gaol might be opened by a gaoler. An Act of Parliament
gave power to the visiting magistrates to make rules for the
regulation of the gaols, such rules to have the force of law
when approved of by the judges of assize. One of the orders
of the visiting magistrates of the gaol of Manchester was, that
no letter should be delivered to any prisoner without being read
by the gaoler.—( Hear, hear.) However, this was quite clear,
that in the debates on the case of his Hon. Friend the
Member for Cumberland, the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman at the, head of the Government, the Attor-
ney-General of the day. and all who spoke upon the
question—one and all—admitted that, if the violation of his
Hon. Friend's correspondence had taken place in the Post-
office, it would have been a gross violation of the privileges of
the House.—( Hear, hear.) lie would not trouble the House
with long quotatione from " Hansard."—(A laugh.) Ile
would only ask them to consider what was his case. He was
ready to prove to the House that the authorities of the Post-
office had intercepted his correspondence at the command of
their superior officer.—( Hear, hear.) lie proposed to bring
those persons to the bar of the House.—( Hear, hear.) He
would then bring their superior officers to the bar—(Cheers and
a laugh)—and he thought that no one could refuse to allow
him the right of bringing afterwards those who gave the mders.
—( Great cheering and laughter.) Now he would ask the House
of Commons, " Are you going to shrink from this investiga-
tion?"—(Cheers.) A Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had
said that the opening of letters was the usage of our ancestors.
—( Hear, hear.) Oh! very well ; let them stand by the usage
of their ancestors—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—let them
do what the House of Commons did in 1689—let them
pronounce this scandalous outrage a gross violation of the pri-
vilege of the Commons of England.—( Loud cheering. )
He could not yet reconcile himself to the belief that the House
of Commons would refuse him the opportunity of having this
case investigated. He would hear at the bar the parties who
would substantiate his case, and they would satisfy the House
that he had used no corrupt means to acquire his information.
He would prove to the House that he had not availed himself
of any secret betrayed by a discarded servant.—( Loud cheers.)
If a man picked his pocket, and another man came to hiM, and
said, " I will tell you who it was that picked your pocket ; I
know him ;" he would turn such a man out of his house, be-
cause he would be betraying him.—( Hear, and laughter.)
But nothing of the sort had occurred in the present instance.—
( Cheers.) M. Mazzini had produced evidence which had
satisfied him that he had spoken truth. He stated that there
were several persons connected with the Post-office
establishment, who were perfectly ready to come forward and to
state what they knew...they were perfectly ready to tell the