The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-09 00:00:00

issued. Now he wished at that moment to ask the Right

Fon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department
whether the former warrants had been adopted by him
(Sir J. Graham) as the models of those which he him-

self had issued?

Sir J. GRAHAM—Not as to the form.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, it would be very inter-
esting to him and others, to have before them copies of
those new forms which had been used in their own
cases.--(Hear, and a laugh.) He believed it would he
found that the practice had been of
,a most demoralising
effect. To prove this, be would read the ordei of the
postmaster general, dismissing servants of the post-office
for opening the letters of certain noblemen and r en-
tlemen connected with sporting affair s.=-(The Hon.
Gentleman read the order.) Now the opening of letters
by a postman was a transportable offence. But the
postmaster dared not prosecute those men, because they
might plead the example of their superiors as an au-
thority. If a jury found them guilty, it would be with
a recommendation to,mercy on account of the example
set them.—(llear, hear.) The dismissal of those men
was occasioned by the unwillingness of the Post• office
and the Home Secretary to go into a Court of Cri-
minal law, with an avowal of their own acts.—(Hear,
hear.) There were Members of 'the Committee of In-
quiry now in the House, and he wished to take the op.
portunity of reminding them of their own re-
port ; in which they expressed some regret that
they could not go into an explanation of all
the circumstances connected with those traniactions.
• •

Now what did the Committee mean by that ? Did they
picture to themselves a Secretary of State for the" Hotyw
Department sitting in his office in a state of Alarm
(having read, perhaps, the Morning Herald, the Minis
terial organ), with respect to some treasonable conspi-
racy, or some sedition, which he learned from a letter
brought from some person in the Pogt-ofhee, but which,
after all, might turn out to be a conspiracy got up by
some Conservative Operative Society, or a mere Chartist
meeting. The Right Hon. Gentleman having found Out
the extent of the conspiracy might put his letter and the
Morning Herald in the fire. Another reason given for
maintaining- this power was this—that if you aoolish it,
the Post-office, this great t;rovernnvnt establislonet.t,
would be made the vehicle of treasonable or seditious

practices. That was the only argument for retaining
this power which had any plausibility ; but upon exa
urination he thought it would be found to possess more
sentiment than common sense. If this argument were
good as regarded the Post-office, it would be equally ap-
plicable to every railway., omnibus •: driver, or
even cab-driver in the kingdom.—(liear, hear.)
Was it not better to use the poWer which the law at
present gave of using a search warrant for the opening
of letters in the Post-office, if they were supposed to
contain treasonable matter, than to open them privately?
That would be a less dishonourable proceeding and less
offensive to the individenl. He did not see how the
power which was lately exercised could be of any value
after the exposures that were made. He did not think
that there was much fear of treason new that they had
policemen in every corner. They had their county
rural police, their borough police. What could they
want more. But they had more, if they knew how to
use it properly—a loyal and affectionate people, who, if
they were well treated, would be the best safeguard of
the Crown, and the tranquillity of the country. He
would ask the House to allow him to bring in a Bill,
and let there be no mistake on the subject. He asked
for leave to bring in a Bill for the unconditional repeal
of this. power. lie was satisfied that no middle course
could be adopted. This system of opening letters—this
system of fraud and of forgery must either continue or
cease. He would be no party to any other
course—be would not be made a fool of by bringing
in a Bill, supposing leave were granted him to do so, and
then having that Bill frittered away or strangled in some
of the subsequent stages. He would have a clear and
decided vote of the House, whether the power was to
continue or cease. He was not aware what was the in-
tention of the Government on the subject, but he hoped
he would hear the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of
State for the Home Department rise.in his place and de-
clare that this was a power not only odious for a Minis-
ter to exercise, but repugnant, to the feelings of the people
of this country—that he would take the matter nut of
his (Mr. Duncombe's) hands, and endeavour to expunge
it from the statute-book, on the clear understanding that
any ill-feeling which this discussion had given rise to,
and any suspicion which had been engendered, should be
now and for ever buried in oblivion —(Hear, hear.) And
this was not the only benefit that would arise from the
abolition of this odious power. If any foreign Minister,
or the spy of any foreign despot, came sneaking to their
doors, a British Minister might tell them that this power
no longer existed—that he was ready to give them any
redress and protection which the British law enabled him
to do ; but with respect to this species of treachery it
was no longer in his power (and he might at the same
time point_ to the Act) to open letters for the gratifica-
don .of any foreign power. With these views, he
.would
ask for leave to bring in a Bill to secure the inviolability
of letters passing through the Post-office.—(Cheers.)
Dr. BOWRING, in seconding the motion, said that
he wished the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department to state whether or not he in-
tended to make the reparation he promised to Mr.
Mazzini's character, in case he found .he had unjustly
aspersed it. He wished to know if the Right Hon. Gen
tleman was able to produce anything in support of the
criminatory charges he had
.alleged nainst Mr. Mazzini.
He would also ask the Right Hon. Baronet if he were
in possession of any other documents relating to this
matter other than those which he bad laid before the
House. It appeared that there had been a communica-
tion from Sir Augustus Foster, st.ther that the
Austrian Minister . had got hold of certain
letters of Mazzini, who had '.been expelled from
Genoa, showing that Mazzini was the head of the secret
tribunal which had authorised the atrocious murder
Which had been committed at Rodez. Now, Sir
Augustus Foster only stated tlyt the Aust,lan Minister
professed to have got hold of ct-rain documente
eating Mr. Mazzini, and he wished to ask the -Right
Hee, Baronet if hefted taken' any steps to get at the
truth in relation to those documents; and he would
also ask it there was anything against Mr. Mazzini be-
yond the insinuations which had been made on a former
occasion, and if there was any- further evidence to be
brought forward in support of the accusation against this
ill- t reated,ealumniated, and, as the Right Hon. Gentleman
.himself had characterised him, unprotected foreigner?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in commencing the obser-
vations which he should feel it to be his duty to add-e 9
to the House on the present occasion, would commence
by alluding to the questions which hat'gs been put to him
-by the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. In the
first place; he would repeat what he had stated to the
House on a former occasion, that until he had been in-
formed of the circumstance in that House on. Tuesday
last, he believed he was not aware of the fact that in the
Westminster Revielv there had appeared a de-
fence of the conduct of Mr.- Mazzini. He had
subsequently stated that it would be his duty to make
inquiries into the facts of the case, and that if the result
should leave any doubt upon his mind as to the accu-
racy of the statements he had made respecting the
transaction to which he had alluded, he should be, happy
to take the first opportunity to state that fact to the
House. He had certainly before stated to the Hoes
on
the first occasion that he had endeavoured to inform
. himself from the best authority, if any. prosecution had
been instituted by Mr. Mazzini against the paper (the
Moniteur) which had first brought forward the accusa-
tion, and he had been informed that no prosecution had
been instituted against that paper. But the same party
'from whom he had obtained that information, had taken
no notice whatever. -to him of the prosecution which. it
was said, had bee* instituted against another party—
namely, Monsieur Gisquet, for a republication of the
same statement. Under these circumstances, he 'had
thought it his duty to institute further inquiries. He
had done so, but he had only heard of these circumstan-
ces on Tuesday last for the first time, and he had as yet
received no further information on the subject. As
soon as he should have received further information, it
would be his duty to state the same to the House—
(Hear, hear)---and, at the same time, to state
the impression left upon his mind as the result of that
inquiry.—(Cheers.) Painful as that discussion had been
to him on former occasions, he was boun-1 to say thae.
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, in introducing a great
question of that importance, had done it in a manner
the most dispassionate that it was possible for any Hon.
Member to do. So far from contending against the po-
sition the lion. Member had taken, he should say that he
was ready to agree with it. lie agreed with him in say-
ing that he did not believe it useful to continue this
power unless secresy be ob-erved. That was the leading
proposition iu the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, and to
that proposition he was willing to give his entire assent.
lie should stale to the House that the lion. Gentleman
had, in thc: way he represented it, almost seduced him
from hi., duty, aid he should admit that this pvi-r had
been viewed with jealousy by the people of this country;
but at the same time he did -not think it consistent with
his duty that he should assent to his motion. If he
did not think so, nothing could give him more
; but - he was first to consider this
question with reference to the public interest, and to the
and would very shortly venture to
dpeuthilliwciitnhteevrhst:tab'e
was-the law of the case, anal to differ
with the view of the Hon. Gentleman. He must say
that the power was not fir-it given by the statute of
Anne. -Opening a letter was a gr.: at moral offence on
the. part of him who- was entrusted with it, but
until this statute passed it was part of the royal prero
-gatiVe to convey letters, and it was universally known
that the Government, from time to time, whenever grave
suspicion arose, did; without hesitation. open letlere con-
fided to its trust, and so far from its being a legal offence,
it was not only not a misdemeanour, but w:ts not even a
ground for a civil action. The statute created the mis-
demeanour, and also created au exception to the Crown.
lie perceived that the law was clear on this point. The
effect of the repeal of this statute would be, that the
opening of letters in the Post-office would no longer be
a misdemeanour or au offence prosecuted by law. The
effect of the restriction of the law in this way, giving an
exception only in favour of the Crown, was, that the se•
curity of correspondence was inviolable. The Hon.
Gentleman had stated, and stated very fairly, what was
the general purport-of the report ot. the Secret Com-
mittee on this subject. The Hon. Member also stated
that the people of this country had an immense interest
in the safety of correspondence sent by post ; he con-
curred in that, and so did the Committee, who, for
that reason, had stated in their report, that with the
exception of such an act being committed by the Secre-
tary of State under warrant,, the security of that cor-
respondence should be inviolable. The Committee fur-
ther stated in their report, the facts 'relative to the
issuing of such warrants on former occasions, and the
circumstances under which they had been issued. • They
stated the number of warrants that had been issued
during the last twenty-two years, and that that
number did not exceed an average of eight in the year.
In fact the substance of the report was that this pri-
vilege had never been-abused in reference to political
warrants, and that not more than one warrant in a. year
during the same period had been issued for criminal

purposes. But was that all ? No ; the report further
stated that great alterations and improvements had been
made in the law in this respect since the time of lebrci
Spencer, in 1806, and that all such warrants issued since
then had been carefully preserved. Well, was there no
other change ? He would show that there was, and i t
was to this effect, that now no Secretary of State could
issue a warrant without the presence of three witnesses
—a confidential clerk and two others, and a Copy of each
such warrant to be left at the Post-office. In this reepect
he bogged to assure the House thaf every warrant issued
by him had been copied, and a copy sent to the Pest-
office ; and not only that, but he produced before Po
Committee every warrant he had issued, and gave an
account seriatim of each. In . all that he had 'done
in this respect he felt that he would be obliard. to
follow precedent, and he dit[so. In respect to political
warrants, the Act required that the Secretary of 'State
should give his reasons in Writing for issuing them, anti
leave a copy of them at the Post-office, so that its fact,
so far as regulations could go, he did not see how regula"
tions could be carried further.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the question as to the expediency of this
power, he would say that if it never had existed, RI"
haps he would question the expediency of rem giving
it; but it having existed, and that, too, from a very esrly
period, and haying undergone many and various media"
cations and asnendments, from the time 3f the R volution
down to the present time, and by the highest authority
in the country, he did nit see why it should • not be
avalicd.ol- %hen circumstances required. 'rhea Hour
wee., now celled , upon to declare that the Governrriens
efe tail not have the power of interfering with the eel.'
respetelence ef any parties; either foreien or dereeslie,
no matter how dangerous or treasonable. The goo.
Gentleman' thoeght it was too much to leave to the
responsible servants of the Crown to take rneesoree ta,
discover the design, of parties believed to be eneteee°
in pletS and intrigues dangerous to this country itself
or menacing te the peace and security of cohere
-(Hear.) - Every country in Etieel e, except Deena'
gave its government the power of preventing the settle
tnent of foreigners within its territory, or of effeeting
their expulsion. He (Sir Jarees Graham) did not ask
fir the restoration i f such favoure to the English G.°.
vernmene He hid elways been eeposed to those pewee
ivhilst they existed. But he thought it was. not- toe
much to ask, in the absence of such powers, that there
should be continued the means of checking correspein-
denci from this country, which was calculated to dis-
turb the peace and endanger the safety of other Stan,
and to prevent this coentry being made the focus.e
conspiracies against its allies.—(Hear, hear.)
focuses
wished he could Arrive at the conclusion at which the
Hon. Gentleman had arrived, that the power soeimite(e
and restricted as, it. was, could be altogether ahandelle"
with safety. He did not think so, and especially wit'
reference to foreign correspondence, there being n°
power in the Government to check the arrival of Le
-
reigners in this country or to effect their rejection. n
believed that the Hon. Gentleman was correct in stn
tic%
that any attempt to modify further the power of t4' °
Crown would prove nugatory, and be, therefore, Pre"
ferred the course which the Hon. Gentleman had taken
of bringing in a Bill to take away that power altogether.
' To that Bill OR the part of her Majesty's Ministers-he
' would give a decided opposition.—(Hear, hear.) see
Lord J. RUS SELL said he quite agreed with vi,-
Right Hon. Gentleman that nothing could have beeti
more fairly stated than the case of his Hon. Friel)
His Hon. Friend had brought forward the question AS:
constitutional one and he had placed his argallo
fairly before the House. Now he (Lord J. Itlessele',
found himself in. the situation of being neither able '-
agree with his Hon. Friend nor with the Right flertgi
Gentleman. He thought there was great force in one, t
the observations made by his Hon. Friend, .namely, thy
this power having been much questioned, much -dill its
sion having taken place amongst the public. as weueele
in that House, the power was no longer of the 0;;4
utility that it had been at a former bens
utility
that there was a sort of WalltPss
given to all persons inclined to use the ree
as a means of correspondence, not to attempt to earrYee,
an illegal correspondence by such an agency. Let hie
however, say that, with regard to the law of the questitp.
his investigations, as far as they had proceeded, hadse 0,
him to the same conclusion as that which the Right Pctof
Gentlemen had borne to. 'lt appeared that the Act.
Anne was framed entirely with the view of into
gzg
punishment and penalties on clerks and persons Cu 40
in the Post- office, and not either to give a power or Ps,
away a power from the Crown which it formerll.P°o
sessed. He had asked several gentlemen conn.ectenAg
the legal profession what sort of criminal prOcB
could be taken against a person who bad agreed to esseeli
letters and had betrayed his trust, and he could not be
'any authority upon which a criminal indictment eoentlis
preferred. It seemed to him, then, that it was oviibe
that the purpose of the Act of Anne was to Peeped
public security against their letters being op the
by going through the Post-office ;• and at this
same time, while it gave that security, it reserved, ra,
power,. which was then considered an established en, re•
cognised power. Of course in that else it was lieb it
cessary to confer the power by Act of Parliamentee'ea
was ot ly neces-ary to refer to it. It had been llTe-e
that this power should be used with more forraalitY!Le
preceution for the liberty of the subject than hithero'";
'His Noble Friend (Lord Radnor) was prepared to P ip%
pose a measure providing that, in all cases of °ploy
letters,. information upon oath should be a niece
peelirninary for the issuing of the warrant. Ile rider"
stood that such was the opinion of a very high a`i`i of
.tshitieses,L,rojd-Dcoenninsitiaent,ait)lheatdistchuesrseiosnhhoaudld
thaekean centree
Placetiootl;
the subject, arid lie was of opinion that some rest Fauna.
of this- sort should be. imposed. - But his* fin „,:0,1
the Member for Finsbury went beyond' this, and sP—ee-
eo consider that letters in the Post-officiewere
eeo
'titled to a peculiar inviolability, so that 0 0
persons. carrying on treason would hair ite
sort of security, by the Bill he won,'" leo,
eroduce, He could ,not, therefore, vote with 01 00
Member for the introduction of his Bill. But if 'tee,
carne from the other HOUSE', or was proposed in.t his
having-the restrictions mentioned, he would give 1014
support. One effect which this Bill would have vie la'
be that of preventing the opening of letters at Viet e 0
stance of any 'foreign Minister: A letter would a° ur.
-opened, in case such a Bill passed, for the alleged pr'
pose of preventing or detecting an insurrection ar _OO
spiracy in a foreign country. The Bill would re able
any such danger. lie thought that was an urtialti Gee'
use of this poWer.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Jour.
tleman had, of course, acted from a sense of publicgo' lil°
He did not believe he was sway ed by party or e°l-001
motives.' He did so.because he considered it to l'f.e.o'
ful to the public service ; but in his (Lord J. 13.05 s te"
'opinion, the use of this power in order to furtherbeese
views of a foreign Minister was unjust.' For ''''lle
reasons he did'not wish to see that power exereised•ci pot
had expressed what his views were, and he and 000
give his vote befaVotir °this Ben; Friend, but he we
,be ready to impose such restrictions as he bad state; 100,
Mr. WARBURTON said, that he thought his 001/
Friend
,the Member for Finsbury had taken the GOP
course which it was expedient to take on this etle"`oe.
It appeared to him that there was no middle coooo,
Abrogate the practice, and do not attempt by new (elle.
saY ,e
lations to set it upon its legs again. He must • sere
..
considered it highly creditable to the British Goverf,eise
to the abstract that 'their power or established Pr beat"'
of opening letters was exercised with so much for lice;'
ance. He did not metal to say that in certain Pardee
.lar cases there might not have been a want of discreet) 0
On the contrary,' his opinion was that there hadheseei!
Want of discretion, but still it was greatly to the °Lors
of the British,. Government that for twenteetwo )r, the,
:they, had only issued eight warrants a year (3.1001,
average,,' and he thought that must be the ePinel 0:
foreigners themselves. As to the authority on ;eses
this practice rested,- it must either depend on ' 01
rogative or common-law, or on the statutesool
lAnne. With regard .to prerogative, only that.
persons versed in antiquarian lore gave evidene,ee,ooll
such a power was exercised in • the time of the Eo"ese"
and Henries, and that the power therefore rested 01,0
rogative. But from a certain return moved for !Vries!
(Mr. Warburton) it would appear that the war eves.
issued in those times were not the result of preroge° 00
but of requests made by the representatives nicestAt
people, requesting the Crown to interfere to Pro 01,
the extortions of the *representatives- of the 03utered
Rome in this.country. There were, indeed, two er tear
exceptions in the • course of a century, where the ;-eras
rant were of a political nature. Of this characteriveol
the we, rents which immediately receded the die those
Edward 11., and the death of Richard 11., but wit': 0 poi
-exceptions no' warrants de se, utinis faciendo (tooper
litical nature were issued.. It was the practice ill leeseci
Ona , s for the Privy Geincil to torture prisoners 0' eve;
for State ,i'feneet, in order to extract from the°3steea
Bence with . regard to the crime with which they ) lel;
'charged. He belies,. d that sech was the custern s(e, till
as the reign of Charlis the First. Even if they reiee°
show from historical 'evidence that the elrown ese" the
the power of opening lettere, he would put it e° ere.
same footing as Ile power of torturing prisonersioter
he would, ask- thein why they did- not put the gear')'
power into practiee at the present day?"—( ;sled
lie believed that if this power existed at all it eit . of
by statute. It was especially noticed in the werttbe
:Bishop Woolley, in some of his communications, f.e ;e_.,
-1.91,10nql IntelliYelicer, and it was on the occasion '
,f OF
.ference to the proceedings of the Administrationn'isheP,
R. Walpole, and"to- justify" the proeecution a -,eo:
,Atterbury. In that communication -he expressly Zero'
of those proceedings having been taken under the t tlei4.
Act—the Act of Anne. He expressly, said that!, 1
power was exercised under the Act recently Pass r,, allot
'was therefore
.clearly no prerogative of the Crew ;09 '
he believed that if the House were to take the rewr esele'
the Committees they would find that there was 11,?,,rethel,
whatever for the retention of-this. power. weetiii-or ly O. e
looked upon the matter as related to the crimina 3essV
liecal, bearitig,- they would find that no really v 0 eopli
information had been obtained, or at least iloahiee rei
tneneurate with the'social evil andimmoralitY w" ect
sulted from the use of the power. Whether th.e): Leo'
on the information furnished by the returns of the ti
erittee on the political or on the criminal warralllo use
would find that the exercise of this power was e
itle'
lesie and unnecessary, cre v° 0
Lord HOWICK said- that he wished, be'9,. een'e°o
for the motion of his Hun. Friend, to assign '1 0, lo
for doing's°. He was not at all prepared to
sent
practice of opening letters to remain in its pres_e":o" eitet
He believed that the present system of secresY.:ere th!,
gethcr unnecessary.—(Hear, hear.) He 'was a"iotot's
there was some power requisite for the SecretarLey.er, wet
but this practice of opening and resealing 14:0, 00,,
one' calculated to create a feeling in the eonne`troiste,
nothing would. be safe from the scrutiny of 0, Ali 0,11'3
Did the Right Hon. Baronet suppose that, after woll
merous discussions in that How,
ever be made a medium for traitorous or seditionla eol,
munications? He might be assured that it W ben iievei;
the Post-Ofc!, CO0'1:
and if a power was. 'required; as
seeesehefise,
'that to 'some extent it- was,.. they might- -twee' -Awes.
of his Honourable Friend, and,- if. they erce ON
.introduce a clause into Committee which - wo"'