SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 6 March 1882)

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
, said, that, in moving to postpone this Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission, he wished to explain that the chief valuator was appointed for seven years, and not for one year, as he had previously stated.

§ MR. LEWIS
said, he wished to make some observations with reference to the debate which had just been adjourned.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The observations of the hon. Member must be relevant to the matter before the House.

§ MR. LEWIS
said, he was about to refer to the Land Commission. A Return was presented to the House a week ago, which had been referred to in another debate, but which had not been circulated among Members. He could find no trace of its having been printed; and he submitted that it was a most irregular and improper proceeding for a Member of the Government to quote statistics, by which the House was bound and influenced, while the document containing those statistics had not been printed. He protested against that; and while hon. Members were reproached with obstructing Business, the conduct of the Government in this matter showed their haphazard way of doing Business, and the way in which they were prepared to dragoon the House.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
thought the hon. Member was not justified in his remarks. These documents were presented to the House by the Government, and were then taken charge of by the House of Commons printer, who alone was responsible for their circulation. He must entirely repudiate any responsibility on the part of the Government.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
inquired whether the Printing Committee were responsible in this matter?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the printing arrangements were conducted with the assistance of the Printing Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that last year the Printing Committee never sat once, and when they did sit no record was kept of their proceedings.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not speaking to the Question before the House.

§ MR. CALLAN
wished to refer to the fact that the Printing Committee had not yet been appointed this year. That was a matter of which he must complain.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must repeat that the hon. Member is not speaking to the matter before the House.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
asked when it was proposed to take this Vote, as there 288 might be some discussion upon it, and it would be desirable that it should be taken at a time when that discussion could take place?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that he would take the Vote as soon as he was able; but he thought it was the general wish that it should be taken when the Chief Secretary for Ire land was in his place.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
inquired whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be in his place to-morrow; and, if so, would the Vote be taken before the adjourned debate on the Resolution now before the House?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he did not propose to put the Vote down for to-morrow.

§ MR. SEXTON
asked for an explanation which had been promised on this Vote of an extraordinary item of £150, which was granted to Mr. Rogers in compensation for injuries received in 1868. It had been stated that this gentleman had been injured 14 years ago, and that in consequence of his injuries he had been obliged, a year or two ago, to leave the Public Service. He wished to know how it was that 14 years had elapsed since those injuries were received, and yet compensation was not given until now; while a great many innocent people who had been injured seriously, and almost fatally, by the police were not compensated? If it should be necessary, in order to afford the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury an opportunity of explaining this, he would move to omit the item.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that last year this gentleman had suffered severely from the injuries received in 1868, and had been under constant medical advice; and he had at last been obliged to retire. Medical certificates from eminent physicians accompanied his application to the Lord Lieutenant; and he could assure the House that this had been an exceedingly hard case, the injuries having been received during the discharge of duty.

§ MR. SEXTON
Has he a pension?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
His regular pension.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the noble Lord had promised to lay the Papers respecting this case upon the Table.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
replied, that there would be no objection to presenting the Papers if moved for.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
begged to give Notice that he would move for the Papers.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, he thought one of the items in this Vote required some explanation. If the Vote was only for the Post Office, then he would not challenge it; but if it was also for the Telegraphs he must do so.

§ MR. GRAY
said, he understood this Vote was for the Post Office, and he did not wish to delay the Report for one moment, except to direct attention to one subject which was worthy of attention. The Vote dealt with Post Office Savings' Banks, and he wished to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that, under the present law, if any depositor deposited in two Savings Banks a total sum exceeding the amount named in the Act the whole sum might be forfeited. He thought this very hard, and that the Postmaster General might look into the matter, with a view to preventing the sacrifice of the whole savings of a man's life owing to what was, after all, a technical rule which anyone might violate without knowing he was doing so.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
wished to receive some explanation on the subject of tampering with letters, and the extent to which that practice went on. He found that the practice had caused considerable inconvenience to persons who might not be reasonably suspected, but who held opinions somewhat different from those at present held by Her Majesty's Government. He said at present held by the Government, because one did not know what opinions they might hold next year. For instance, a lady had complained to him two days ago that letters from herself to a county in the North of Ireland appeared to have been tampered with, and the replies she received from her friends on ordinary business arrived in envelopes having 290 every sign of having been ransacked by inquisitive persons. Sometimes the ends were left entirely open, and the only clue the lady could get to explain this was that one of her correspondents in the North of Ireland was a member of the Ladies' Land League, or Ladies' Aid Society, and a friend in London was a member of the English Land League. Was this to be allowed as a sufficient reason for ladies' letters to be opened and pried into by English gentlemen? He also wished to know what explanation could be given of the practice that circulars suspected of being sent, say, from branches of the Prisoners' Aid Society, or to members urging subscriptions for the charitable objects of those institutions, were, on the pretence that the handwriting of the addresses was recognized, and, on similar evidence, being destroyed wholesale in the Irish Post Office? A legal authority had informed him that that deliberate destruction of circulars and similar things given into the custody of the Post Office authorities, whether by small or big officials, amounted to felony; and he was not aware that the Coercion Act, or any recent Act with regard to Ireland, expressly exempted officials from the punishment of felony. And he was not aware, if that were the case, that special exemptions of that kind were calculated to promote respect for law and order in Ireland. He made this statement on the authority of several sources—that the Post Office burned and destroyed wholesale what it considered to be documents or circulars calculated to promote some object with which Her Majesty's Government did not at present agree. As the President of the Board of Trade had explained, if it was necessary still to pass a certain Bill through the House of Lords, these circulars would be all right; but it no longer being necessary to pass a measure through the House of Lords, these circulars had become of such a character that the officials of the Post Office were destroying them wholesale. He sincerely hoped that if this was taking place it had been kept from the knowledge of the Postmaster General, because it would be a grief to all the Irish Members, who had so often fought side by side with the right hon. Gentleman against the Government of the late Lord Beaconsfield, to discover that he had any part in transactions of this 291 nature. He would ask, in the first place, within what safeguards, and under what warrants, and to what extent the tampering with private correspondence continued? He wished to know who were appointed to read the private correspondence of Irish Members and Irish ladies? For if the Home Secretary alone was intrusted with that function, that might explain his neglect of the Police arrangements in London which had recently been so notable; at the same time, it would be a certain consolation to the Irish Members that their correspondence was solely confided to a gentleman of his discretion. But they wanted to know whether Post Office officials of no particular standing, and with no particular guarantees, were authorized to open and ransack private correspondence? Last year he had stated that he should have no ojection to his letters being opened, on condition that the Post Office would supply sound envelopes in place of the torn envelopes. But that in itself was a matter of serious inconvenience. Members were continually receiving letters with damaged envelopes, and they did not know whom to blame if some of their contents were absent.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
wished to know from the Postmaster General whether all the letters that were opened and read and copied were afterwards forwarded to their destination, or whether any of them were confiscated by the Post Office? That was a simple question, and he hoped it would receive a plain and direct answer. He had good reason for asking that question. Furthermore, he would like to know if due precautions were taken to insure that the contents of any of the envelopes which were opened were safely and duly put back into the envelopes from which they were taken? A few nights ago the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Daly) detailed the facts of a most extraordinary change or exchange of the contents of letters—it was a case in which the bank book of a gentleman was put into an envelope, posted by a little school-girl, and enclosing a number of religious pictures. He wanted to have some assurance that cheques and postage stamps and other valuables were not taken from envelopes, and that none of them were mislaid or lost in their transmission through the Post Office, under the process of letter- 292 opening and confiscation which was going on at present under the warrant of the Chief Secretary.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, he wished to make a suggestion with regard to the opening of letters delivered in England. It was that when letters were opened by the Government they should be delivered either opened or enclosed in a fresh envelope, and should be endorsed—"Opened by the authority of the Government." Since the opening of the present Session he had received several letters which had been opened in the most barefaced and clumsy manner, and in the fastening down very much torn and dirtied. It must be a very humiliating task to close up letters after having been opened; therefore, let the Government be straightforward in the matter—let them deliver the letters open, or, if they closed them again, let them affix some official stamp to show they had been tampered with.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, his hon. Friends had put some questions which they had a good claim to have answered. He felt extremely anxious on one point. He wished to know what the Chief Secretary conceived to be his power under his warrant—Did the right hon. Gentleman believe he had power to open a letter, and, if he thought fit, to seize it and. keep it? Did the right hon. Gentleman or any of his subordinates believe that after having copied a letter they had the right to destroy it? He believed the Government did not open as many letters as formerly; perhaps they found the correspondence too dry and uninteresting. He was occasionally troubled with questions from his constituents as to whether he had received this or that letter, so he was inclined to think the system of opening letters still remained in force. The Government had now opened letters for a whole year. Surely they ought to have discovered whether the system repaid them. Surely, if anything improper had been carried on through the medium of the Post Office, they would have at the end of a year been able to institute some criminal prosecution or other. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he was entitled to infer that a year's trial of this wholesale tampering with private correspondence had been of no avail. They had a right to ask the Government whether their search had been at all repaid 293 —whether it had proved of the slightest good from a political point of view? He was aware that the officials in the Dublin Post Office had grown so wanton that they did not even take the trouble to open some envelopes; if they thought they recognized the handwriting they did not even take the trouble to copy the letters, but threw the unopened envelopes into the fire. It occurred to him that that was villainy. He could not believe the Postmaster General was entitled to destroy a post letter, although he knew it was contended that when a letter was posted it was public property. It was not known, and never would be known, what letters had been destroyed. He would conclude, as he began, by asking whether the Chief Secretary or the Postal officials considered that, under the warrant of the Chief Secretary, they were bound to send a letter on after having copied it, or whether they considered themselves entitled to destroy it?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, that, perhaps, the Home Secretary would now tell them—he endeavoured to get the information last Session by questions put to the Government—whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General received a specific warrant from the Home Secretary with regard to each letter that he opened, or whether he received a general warrant and opened all the letters addressed to the gentlemen mentioned in the warrant? The question was a very important one; but he believed it was a very moot question with lawyers whether the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was not exceeding his duty, and rendering himself liable to serious consequences, if he opened a letter without having a specific warrant to do so.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I have waited until I could answer all the questions which hon. Gentlemen were anxious to put to me. There was a question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I beg leave to say that in this matter the Postmaster General has no responsibility whatever. The responsibility is absolutely and entirely with the Secretary of State; it is upon him that the law has imposed the responsibility. Another question was asked as to whether, under the warrants issued in this matter, there is power to open and examine only, or 294 whether there is also power to detain? Now, distinctly, there is power to detain, because that is mentioned in the Statute.

§ MR. SEXTON
Does "detain" mean to keep altogether?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I imagine so.

§ MR. SEXTON
To destroy?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
About the legal power there is no doubt whatever.

§ MR. SEXTON
Destroy?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I do not think the word "destroy" is mentioned, and I have not got the Statute with me. Well, then, there was another question put which was a very important one, and that was whether this power could be exercised by subordinate officials? I say most certainly not. The power is absolutely a power which rests upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and can only be exercised upon his direct authority. It is an authority which has been placed in the Secretary of State's hands solely for the public safety; and if any Secretary of State exercised such a power, except in cases in which he was satisfied in his own mind, and upon his own responsibility, that it was absolutely necessary for the safety of the State, he would be guilty of a gross breach of duty, and I would say of a gross breach of honour also. I conceive that is the position in which the law has placed this matter. I ought to say the power is with the Secretary of State in England only; in Ireland it belongs to the Irish Government. The Secretary of State has nothing whatever to do with the Post Office in Ireland. Several assertions have been made as to the mode of dealing with letters in Ireland. I must confess I know nothing of the method adopted in that country, but I cannot imagine such a thing as the burning of letters wholesale. Well, then, other questions' were asked as to how, and when, and to what extent this power is exercised? This matter was discussed last year, and I gave then the only answer that it is possible for me to give on the subject. This is a power which is given for purposes of State, and the very essence of the power is that no account can be rendered. To render an account would be to defeat the very object for which the power was granted. That was perfectly admitted, after all the discussions which took place on this subject, by 295 the Committee of the House of Commons appointed a good many years ago, and both Houses of Parliament, having examined into the matter, determined to continue the power which then existed. It has continued ever since, and there is no security whatever in the exercise of that power except the responsibility of the Minister to whom the power is intrusted, and if he is not fit to exercise the power upon the responsibility which is cast upon him he is not fit to occupy the position of Secretary of State.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
Does the Minister open the letters himself?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I have told the hon. Member that it is upon the personal authority of the Secretary of State that the thing is done. With every respect to hon. Members, I must say I can give no further information on the subject. In my opinion, I ought not to do so; it is out of no disrespect to hon. Members that I give this answer, but it is the essence of that power that the Minister responsible should not give information beyond what I have already given.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
said, he must offer his sincere congratulations to the Postmaster General on the fact that upon him there did not rest any of the responsibility for all these transactions; he could hardly imagine a man of the right hon. Gentleman's high character having anything to do with business which involved such proceedings. He did not think the Home Secretary had precisely answered the questions put to him. They understood perfectly well that the whole thing was done upon the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and that he alone was responsible to the House. What they wanted to know was—Did he delegate his warrant and power to any subordinate officials? Did he, in fact, open and read all the letters himself; or did he instruct his subordinate officials to do so and report to him about them? It did not seem to him that the safety of the State would be in any way imperilled if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to give a plain answer to that question. The Home Secretary said something about what would be the duty of a statesman and a man of honour in such a matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a statesman, and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) 296 was sure he was a man of honour; but in such transactions as these they were now discussing one was led to remember the advice of Lady Teazle to Mr. Joseph Surface, when he, in a memorable conversation, made some allusion to his honour. She said—"Don't you think, Mr. Surface, we had better leave honour out of this business?" He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to consider that advice and leave honour out of these discussions.

MR. GORST
said, he really must protest against the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Postmaster General was not responsible at all; that he alone was responsible in the matter. He begged leave to refer the House to the section of the Act of Parliament which made it a misdemeanour For any person employed in the Post Office, contrary to his duty, to open, or to procure to be opened, a post letter, or wilfully to delay or detain, or procure or suffer to be delayed or detained, any post letter. To do this was a misdemeanour: Provided always that this did not extend to the opening, or detaining, or delaying of a post letter in obedience to the expressed warrant, in writing, under the hand of the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Postmaster General and the employés of the Post Office were guilty of misdemeanour, unless they opened or detained a letter in pursuance of an expressed warrant under the hand of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State's warrant was not given, and, if given, it did not relate to the particular letter opened, he (Mr. Gorst), with great deference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's extraordinary learning and knowledge of law, submitted that his conception of the matter was altogether erroneous.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had not given any answers at all to the questions put to him; he had not answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and he had not told them whether it was necessary to issue a specific warrant for the detention of a particular letter. Upon those points they were entitled to some information; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman might not be able to speak again 297 on the subject, perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would tell them what was done by the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or whoever it was who issued the warrants, to authorize the opening of letters in Ireland? His hon. Friends had stated that circulars and letters were torn in the Post Office in Dublin, and that some even were destroyed without being opened at all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he knew nothing of such things, and that he did not believe them. He could well understand that the Home Secretary did not believe them; but they had a right to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Postmaster General if they would take any steps to ascertain whether there was any truth whatever in the state-meats? A very grave charge had been brought against the Post Office officials, and it was due to them that some inquiry should be made. Before the debate closed, he hoped they would have some real information upon the different points now raised. The Home Secretary said that the opening and reading of letters was carried on solely under the authority of the Secretary of State; but they had a right to ask to what class of officials was the work intrusted? Was it intrusted, for instance, in the Post Office in Dublin, to the Postmaster or to some high official; or was any ordinary clerk, into whose hands a letter to or from a prominent Land Leaguer might fall, entitled to open it? It was proper, too, that they should hear something in reply to the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond)—namely, that if the Government would insist upon opening letters, they ought to put an official stamp upon them, showing that they had been opened. Surely if the Government had the power to open letters, and if they exercised the power, as it was well known they did, why should they be ashamed to admit they had done so in any particular case? It was no uncommon tiling for hon. Gentlemen sitting around him to receive letters which had been opened; but they were in complete doubt as to whether they had been opened by the authority of the Secretary of State, or by some curious person in the Post Office who had no authority whatever to open them. Inasmuch as answers had not been vouchsafed to the questions put by 298 different hon. Members, he should move that the Vote be postponed until such time as the Government would condescend to afford them the information required.

§ DR. COMMINS
said, there was another point requiring elucidation. The Act provided that the opening of a letter, when done in Ireland, should be done under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and he saw no person present who was capable of answering the questions which had been put, especially those concerning the secreting or destruction of letters in Ireland. The section of the Post Office Act which had not been referred to, and which section was the 26th, made it a felony for any person employed in the Post Office to embezzle, secrete, or destroy any post letter. One of the principal complaints made was that letters passing through the Post Office in Ireland were embezzled, secreted, or destroyed, and there was scarcely a person who received a large amount of correspondence in Ireland who did not constantly miss inclosures. He had had to complain that inclosures sent to him were taken out of letters; why or wherefore he could not understand. It was now said that circulars had been posted to different parts of Ireland, and that they had been destroyed in the Post Office by hundreds. Now, there was nothing in the Post Office Act, and there was no authority vested in the Lord Lieutenant, or anybody else, that could justify the destruction of any post letter or the contents of any post letter. To destroy a letter or its contents would be clearly illegal, and any warrant given to that effect would, in a Court of Law, be declared null and. void. It was only proper that inquiries should be made as to whether the complaints were or were not justified, and they ought to be told whether warrants were issued—as the Act clearly required—for each particular letter that was opened; or whether general warrants—which 100 years ago had been declared illegal—were issued, authorizing all letters to So-and-So, or all letters in the handwriting of such-and-such persons, to be opened. He thought, too, some information ought to be given as to the dissatisfaction which prevailed very largely in Ireland as to the management of the Post Office in that country. No one was present who could give the answers required. He and his hon. Friends had every reason to complain 299 that the Person to whom they looked for answers and explanations—the Person upon whom the legal responsibility rested—was not in his place to give such answers as might satisfy the justifiable curiosity of hon. Members on that side of the House, and might allay, if it were possible, the feeling in Ireland that the tampering with private correspondence was carried on most dishonourably.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Do I understand the hon. Member to move the postponement of this Resolution?

§ MR. LEAMY
Certainly, if I am in Order in doing so.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does any hon. Member second that Motion?

§ MR. CALLAN
begged to second it.

§ MR. GILL
said, that he also would have been prepared to second the Motion, because he felt that one or two important questions had been raised, which, for the satisfaction of the Irish public, ought to be explained by Her Majesty's Government. One of them was, whether, in the letters which had been opened, any cash remittances had been found, and what was done with cheques or notes in the event of any being discovered? Of course, if the letters were not delivered to the persons to whom they were addressed, it was impossible to deliver any cash which they might have contained. It was therefore as well to know whether any money remittances of that kind were kept by the Government towards paying the expenses of the Post Office establishment, or whether they were returned to the persons by whom they were sent? That was one point which he was of opinion ought to be answered. Another was this—Were the persons who wore employed to open these letters sworn to secrecy. If not, it might very often happen that they might talk in a jocular manner of the contents of some of these letters, informing their friends of what they had seen in them. Of course, there was nothing to prevent them from doing that unless the precaution was taken to swear them to secrecy, in the same manner as the telegraph clerks and other officials were. He trusted that he might receive an answer to these questions—What was 300 done with the money remittances found in letters which were opened at the Post Office; and were the persons employed in opening them sworn to secrecy, or were they not?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, he did not know whether he would be in Order in speaking again; but with the permission of the House he desired to say a few words. The hon. Member who had just spoken must see that he could not possibly answer the sort of questions which had been put to him, because they involved, first of all, a statement or admission that any letter had been opened at all. It was exactly because he could make no statement on that subject that he was unable to answer the questions of the hon. Member. It was utterly impossible to answer questions of the character of those which had been put to him. He had no wish to deal unfairly with the House in the matter; but he must say that if this power was to be given at all and exercised for the purposes for which it was given, it was of the very essence of the power that no statement whatever should be made on the subject, even to the extent of saying whether any letter had been opened or had not been opened. It was quite plain that if he were to answer the questions of the hon. Member in any degree at all, he might next be examined as to the extent to which the power had been used, and the object for which the power was given would become utterly useless. He therefore respectfully submitted to the House that it was perfectly impossible to answer the questions which had been put, and he declined to answer the inquiry, even to the extent of admitting that any letter had been opened at all.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
remarked, that certain powers to be exercised for a particular purpose had been vested in the Secretary of State in England, and, he presumed, in the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. These powers were of a most exceptional character. He must say that they were powers which he himself exercised with very great care and caution when they were intrusted to him, and he was satisfied that they were powers which neither the Secretary of State nor the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would ever wish to exercise unless they were compelled to do so in the interests of the public. At any rate, he 301 could answer for himself at the time he filled the Office of Home Secretary. Of course, it was quite possible for any person intrusted with the power of opening letters to disclose to the public what the action taken under this power was; but it was quite another matter when it came to be a question how the responsibility had been exercised, and how the Secretary of State had acted. It was possible for things to have been missed which were of great value, and, of course, if any well-founded and specific charge of that kind were made, the Secretary of State would be bound to give an answer on the responsibility cast upon him, and in order to justify the use of that responsibility; but, at the present moment, no such specific charge was made, and it appeared to him that the Secretary of State had taken the only course open to him—namely, that of refusing to answer the questions which had been put to him.

§ MR. CALLAN
rose to continue the debate, when——

§ MR. SPEAKER
interposed, and said, the hon. Member having seconded the Motion, was not entitled to speak again.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
(who rose amid loud calls for a division) said, that, however impatient hon. Members might be to go home, they must all admit that the answer they had received to the inquiries which had been addressed to the Government were most unsatisfactory. An hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Sexton) had made an important and specific charge to the effect that in Dublin a large number of letters were not only opened and detained, but were absolutely destroyed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had declared that he accepted the whole of the responsibility, and, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must do so in regard to the detention of any letter in England; but he understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman entirely repudiated any responsibility for the action of the Post Office authorities in Ireland. At present, there was nobody in the House who directly represented the Lord Lieutenant, and nobody representing Ireland was prepared to say for that country what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had already said in regard to England. On a previous occasion the noble Lord the Financial Secretary postponed 302 the Report, owing to the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; and it appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that, with regard to this Vote, there was very much stronger reason for postponing the consideration of the Report than there was on the Land Commission Vote. He therefore trusted that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary would accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), and agree to postpone the Vote until the return of the Chief Secretary.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, it was admitted that the Home Secretary had certain responsibilities in the matter; but if no information was given of any kind whatever, where was the responsibility? The Irish Members did not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for any particular details with regard to particular letters; but they asked this much. For instance, if it was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself who opened the letters or ordered them to be opened, to whom did he delegate his authority, and to how many? The persons to whom the authority was delegated certainly were not responsible. The only responsibility in the matter was the responsibility to Parliament, and these unnamed subordinates, if they were delegated by the Home Secretary, certainly were not the Home Secretary himself. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that he did delegate his authority and power to certain persons, then the House would know that he was responsible for the acts of such persons; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused all information whatsoever, and, in fact, evaded the responsibility placed on him by the Act of Parliament. That was what the Irish Members objected to. By using the word "responsibility," the words "by his authority," and so forth, in reality he evaded all responsibility, and then he refused to allow his authority to be brought to any test. That was what the Irish Members considered to be unfair, and they were of opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not discharging the duty he owed, not only to the Members of that House, but to the public at large. They had no wish to delay the House unduly over this Vote; but it was the only course they were able to take in view of the unsatisfactory position in which the un- 303 satisfactory answers of the Home Secretary had placed the matter. All that it was in their power to do was to raise the whole question on this Resolution of the Report of the Committee of Supply. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would seriously look into the matter, and especially into the way in which he was himself affected by the exercise of the power conferred upon him by Statute. For a moment he would assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not in any way overstepped his power, and surely it was his duty to tell the House on what general principle he acted, and who were his representatives. Were they the postmasters of the country? Were they the police officers; or were they some of the Castle officials? The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have some information to give to the House upon the matter. He ought to be able to give some guarantee in regard to the manner in which the power was exercised. They had already before them the fact that letters were continually received, not only in a dilapidated and broken condition, but sometimes with their contents abstracted. Did that come under the head of "detaining letters," which the right hon. and learned Gentleman declared to be part of his powers? The Irish Members wanted to know how they were to draw a line between the official detention of their letters and the felonious purloining of the letters themselves? Unless some official information was given, it was impossible to know whether their letters were delayed and properly taken care of, or whether the contents had been filched by some subordinate of the Post Office without the authority of Her Majesty's Government. The Home Secretary was bound to tell the House, in the interests of common honesty, what precautions he had taken to prevent the opening of letters being utilized by some persons or other, for whose acts he was not responsible, in order to purloin or efface certain correspondence. That was a very plain matter, and certainly could not affect any State secret. He was asking no question about any specific letter, or whether any particular letter had been detained for such-and-such reasons; but he wished to have some general knowledge of the conditions under which the letters of the Irish Members were opened and detained. 304 The Home Secretary would not even admit that any letter had been detained. That was a deliberate attempt to escape entirely from the responsibility cast upon him by the Act of Parliament. What was to be said of a Home Secretary who was authorized by Act of Parliament to detain letters, and yet refused to say whether he detained them or not? Surely there was no object of State policy to be gained by a complete denial of that kind. The refusal to admit even that the power was exercised was an evasion of a very undignified kind. If all information was refused, he should certainly take another occasion for bringing the matter under the notice of the House by a means of distinct Resolution. The Liberal Party professed to be the denouncers of despotism in foreign parts; but, nevertheless, they sat in admiring silence while the Home Secretary tacitly admitted the exercise of tyrannical and arbitrary power, far beyond anything a foreign despot ever contemplated.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he was bound to protest against the course taken by hon. Members below the Gangway in persistently delaying the passing of this Vote. What object did they expect to gain? Did they think that any questions they could put would move the Home Secretary from the position he had taken, and a position which he (Mr. Warton) begged to say was one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to take? The conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was exceedingly right and proper; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought fit to get up and decline to answer the questions put to him, he (Mr. Warton), in his humble way, should have requested him not to answer them. As it was, he was pleased with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his firmness. There was a kind of insinuation contained in the speech of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) against the Postmaster General. The hon. Member expressed regret that a man of the high character which the right hon. Gentleman formerly enjoyed should have been concerned in a matter of this kind. That appeared to be a sort of insinuation against the Postmaster General; but, although he neither believed in the Home Secretary nor in the Postmaster 305 General as politicians, he should be sorry to think they were not entitled to the highest honour for the way in which they discharged the duties of their Offices.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he thought they had made out an unanswerable case for the postponement of the Resolution. No attempt whatever had been made by any occupant of the Treasury Bench to defend the action which had taken place, nor had any information been given with respect to the practice at the Irish Post Office. Irish Members were much more concerned with that than with the English Post Office, and it was with regard to the Irish Department that the present accusation had been made—namely, that on the mere suspicion of handwriting, certain envelopes containing information had been destroyed without being opened. The right hon. Gentleman, whose responsibility for the English Office appeared to be of a most shadowy character, declined any responsibility at all for the Irish Department. The question was—Had they or had they not a right to ask questions of this kind upon a matter of public administration, and were they not entitled to receive explanations with reference to it? It was obvious that the theory of Ministerial responsibility vanished entirely, if a fact of this nature was to be passed over when explanations with regard to it were asked by the Representatives of the people and refused by one Minister because another Minister was absent. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, it would appear, had abandoned his position in that House for duties of a peripatetic character in Ireland, and the position taken up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in consequence was simply intolerable, when looked at from the point of view of the meaning of Ministerial responsibility. Parliament had conferred, it seemed, certain powers, and they had to be exercised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the best of his judgment for the public safety. It was not for him to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in any way violated his duty in this respect; but he challenged him to say how the answers given to the questions which had been put to him could in any way divest him of his responsibility in the matter. They wanted to know by what class of officials in the Post Office the 306 opening and destruction of letters was effected, and on what conditions they were allowed to act? Were they upon their word of honour, or upon their oath, or what other safeguard was there to protect the public against the improper exercise of these powers? He denied that the position of any criminal, real or intended, could be affected by the questions that had been asked; and while he agreed that the rules of debate were elastic, there were still limits to ingenuity in that respect, and he could not but regard the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he was not prepared to admit that any letter had been opened at all, as most peculiar and unsatisfactory.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, that the rule that questions should not be put to an accused person because he might, in his answer, criminate himself, might be a very good one in criminal practice; but he never thought that a high official of the Government—a statesman—would shelter himself under a plea that was accorded to a prisoner at the Old Bailey. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, however, said he could not admit, by any reply of his, that any letters had been opened at all. But supposing that letters had been opened under the warrant which they knew to exist, he asked what would become of the cheques or postage stamps that were inclosed in them? He did not think it would be below the dignity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to say, if it was his duty to cause letters to be opened and detained, whether the remittances inclosed in them were detained or destroyed. It would be much better if the Government, or rather the right hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for these acts, had the courage to stamp upon letters the fact that they had been opened, and not shelter himself behind a miserable subterfuge.

§ MR. WARTON
wished to know whether it was in Order for the hon. Member to charge a Member of that House with sheltering himself behind a miserable subterfuge?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is attributing an unworthy motive to a Member of the House. The expression used by him should be withdrawn.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he would withdraw any remark he had made that was out of Order. He had not attri- 307 buted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman any unworthy motive. He had only stigmatized his conduct.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not withdrawing his expression. He is repeating it.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he withdrew any expression to which Mr. Speaker objected. Passing from that point, he wished to say that he had seen letters with the words "not to be Harcourted" stamped upon them; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman might save the credit of the Department if he had the courage to adopt an india-rubber stamp, with the word "Harcourted" upon it, to be used when a letter was opened.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it was very much to be regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was absent while a question of the violation of the law was being discussed. The Attorney General for Ireland, however, might be able to give some information with regard to what had taken place in the Irish Post Office and in order to give him an opportunity of supplying this, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY
seconded the Motion, for the purpose of affording the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite an opportunity for explanation. The right hon. And learned Gentleman the Home Secretary really knew little or nothing at all of the proceedings which so much interested Irish Members. They wished to know whether the opening of letters was done under a general warrant—that was to say, was there a warrant given to open all letters, or did it only apply to certain persons whose correspondence was to be examined? He thought some light ought to be thrown upon this important subject, and, with the permission of the House, he would quote the opinion of the late Mr. Carlisle with reference to the practice of opening letters in the Post Office. Mr. Carlyle, in a letter to The Times, said— It is a question vital to us that sealed letters in an English Post Office be—as we all fancied they were—respected as things sacred; that 308 opening of men's letters, a practice near of kin to picking men's pockets, and to other still viler and far fataler forms of scoundrelism, be not resorted to in England except in cases of the very last extremity. When some new 'Gunpowder Plot' may he in the wind, some double-dyed high treason, or imminent national wreck not avoidable otherwise, then let us open letters; not till then.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I wish to point out to the hon. Member, that, having spoken to the Motion before the House, he is not at liberty to speak again. I must call on some other hon. Member to second the Motion.

§ MR. W. J. CORBET
said, he would second the Motion.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, hon. Members must see that he could give no other answer to the question put to him than that he had already tendered. It was obvious, therefore, that the Motion for Adjournment, on account of the absence of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, was out of place. If his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) were now in his place, he could give no other answer than that hon. Members had received. He (Sir William Harcourt), in regard to England, had given the only answer it was possible for him to give; and in regard to Ireland, the Chief Secretary could say no more. It could, therefore, be of no avail to persist in this Motion.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that if the Chief Secretary were here, hon. Members would be able to ask a question—and probably elicit an answer—as to whether any representation had been made to the Irish Government with regard to the numerous letters which it was distinctly alleged had been destroyed in the Dublin Post Office? That was a matter upon which it was extremely likely that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to afford them some information. That point alone was sufficient, he thought, to justify them in asking the Government to consent to the postponement of this Vote, just as on similar grounds they had consented to the postponement of other Votes.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, the Irish Members had a right to ask and to be informed by the Attorney General for Ire- 309 land whether it was legal for the Home Secretary in England, or the Chief Secretary in Ireland, to destroy private letters sent through the Post Office? No information had been given on that point; and he wanted to know before this money was voted for a Public Department, whether that Department, in certain things it was doing, was acting legally? If the Chief Secretary had power to seize and open and destroy, that power would, no doubt, extend to property. Would the Chief Secretary be equally entitled to burn a cheque or bank note as he was to burn a letter? He really thought it was due to the Irish Members and the House that the Attorney General for Ireland should accept the responsibility which devolved upon him as Representative of the Chief Secretary, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and get up in his place and make some statement to the House. The Home Secretary had taken that responsibility on himself in regard to England.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he had been called upon so frequently, that he might be supposed to be wanting in ordinary courtesy to the House if he did not rise. What he had to say was, in the first place, that he was not the Representative of the Chief Secretary nor of the Lord Lieutenant. He represented solely the Office he had the honour to fill—namely, that of Attorney General for Ireland. He had no power to open or destroy letters in the Post Office, nor had he ever attempted to do anything of the kind, nor did he believe it ever had been done. He was not aware that there was in point of law, any power vested in anyone to destroy another person's letters. It was his duty to direct all criminal prosecutions in Ireland, and it sometimes happened in that country, as he supposed it sometimes happened in England, that letters were—to use a strong, though very proper expression—stolen. Only the day before yesterday he had directed a prosecution against a letter-carrier for having appropriated letters which did not belong to him. The premises occupied by this letter-carrier had been searched, and a very large number of letters, belonging to various people, had been found there. That was the only instance, so far as he could at the moment recollect, which had come under 310 his notice, since he was Attorney General for Ireland of letters having been stolen.

§ MR. GRAY
said, he did not think the Irish Members were to blame for the course things were now taking. This question had been raised in Committee; and it was to be expected when it was known that it would be further discussed on Report, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have been in his place to answer for what had taken place in Ireland, as the Home Secretary was present to answer for England. If it was not convenient for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be here, at least it was to have been expected that he would have instructed either the Attorney General or Solicitor General for Ireland, not to tell the House what they were not aware of, but to tell the House what they were aware of, and what had been done. They had had a legal opinion from the Attorney General for Ireland that there was no justification for the destruction of letters; but the House had it from Irish Members present that they were informed, on what they believed to be good authority, that letters had been destroyed in the Dublin Post Office. He did not think negative statements from the Irish Law Officers of the Crown, that they did not know anything about letters having been destroyed, were sufficient. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he were a little better informed on this subject, might have to prosecute some person else beside the letter-carrier. It would be a painful duty; but, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would discharge it with that impartiality and zeal which characterized all his actions. He (Mr. Gray) wished to know whether the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant considered themselves justified, under Act of Parliament, in intercepting and destroying newspapers; and whether large numbers of American newspapers and newspapers published elsewhere had been, and were being, intercepted and destroyed? There would surely be no breach of State secrecy in giving an answer to these questions. While the Government might have power to deal with a specific publication of a newspaper deemed to be seditious, they had no right whatever to adopt any process for the wholesale suppression of a newspaper; and the interception of all the copies of a newspaper going through the 311 post might, in Ireland, amount to the suppression of the newspaper. He believed the Government were suppressing newspapers in that way, and he should like to be informed under what Statute they were operating? No Member of the Government could plead his official position for an evasion of the Statute Law.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, that, in the statement they had just heard from the Attorney General for Ireland, they had heard a little of the truth come out at last. They learnt that some letters—and probably amongst them were many of those about which the Irish Members had been pushing a fruitless inquiry that night—had been found in the possession of a letter-carrier. It would not be well to prejudge the case of this letter-carrier—who in all probability had not yet been brought to trial—but they had it on the authority of the Irish Attorney General that a large number of missing letters had been found at the house of a letter-carrier. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) was not surprised at that, and he merely looked upon it as a proof of the demoralization which was prevailing in the Department from one end to the other. There was a saying in Ireland, "Like master like man;" and the Attorney General for Ireland had only given them another glimpse of the state of the Post Office in Ireland.

§ MR. LEAMY
wished to know whether the section of the Act of Parliament, which had been quoted that night, empowered the Chief Secretary for Ireland to seize newspapers and detain them? That was a very simple question, to answer which there surely could be no objection.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, there was a section of the Act putting newspapers in the same category with letters.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the Government had no other plea than "their responsibility." The Irish Members asked about arrests and detention of letters, and about telegrams and about newspapers, and the reply was always the same—that there was no security in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Statute except the "responsibility of the Minister." He was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he had nothing to do with the searching and reading of letters, and he congratulated him that there wore some Departments of 312 the State still free from this defilement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken for the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Well, they all knew what sweet unanimity pervaded the present Cabinet; but they had not known that that unanimity was so complete that a Minister of the Treasury Bench could tell what was taking place in the mind of a Colleague in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) still hoped, however, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to tell them something useful as to the seizure and destruction of letters in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had told them he was authorized to seize, open, and detain letters, and had added that "detain" meant to keep them altogether. He (Mr. Sexton) ventured to think that "to detain" merely meant "to delay"—though, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was more of a lawyer than he was. He should like to hear what the Chief Secretary for Ireland had to say about this—what his view of the law was. No doubt, the Attorney General for Ireland was innocent of tampering with letters; but he was entitled to think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not innocent of it. The Irish Members said they believed private letters had been seized, opened, and destroyed; and they were entitled to ask that this Vote should be delayed until the Minister responsible for the affairs of Ireland gave them an answer, one way or the other, as to the series of acts committed by the Irish Executive, which, by the legal aspect they bore, the Irish Members believed to be felonies.

§ DR. COMMINS
wished to know what interpretation the Government put upon the provisions of the Post Office Act? According to his interpretation, there was no general power given to open letters—to open letters in batches. This should be declared by the Government, in order to restore confidence to the people of Ireland who, at present, did not feel at ease, believing, as they did, that their innocent correspondence might be opened by officials. The construction he put upon the Statute was that there must be a warrant for each and every letter opened, and that was not the practice in Ireland; they had not only their own experience, but the knowledge of nearly everyone in the country, to prove that, 12 mouths ago, it was a 313 matter of notoriety that hundreds of letters were opened by the Government. About this time of the year it was customary for Irish people having friends in England to send over pieces of shamrock to them. Letters sent to him, containing shamrock, had been opened, and the shamrock taken away. He gave this fact to the House on his own. word, and that of many other Irish Members, who had told him that in their case the same thing had been done. He had it from general report that thousands of letters had been opened in this way and their contents abstracted. The law called that a felony. If letters could only be tampered with by the Chief Secretary in Ireland and the Home Secretary in England, surely the wholesale opening of letters and the abstraction of their contents by other officials constituted a felony, punishable with penal servitude.

§ MR. GILL
said, he was glad to hear from the Attorney General for Ireland and the Home Secretary, that they admitted that the destruction of newspapers in the Post Office was illegal. The Attorney General for Ireland said there was no Statute whatever permitting the destruction of letters; and then the Home Secretary stated that there was a Statute which put newspapers in exactly the same position and category as letters. That, of course, proved, that if it was illegal to destroy letters, it was also illegal to destroy newspapers.

§ MR. GRAY
asked, in reference to the Post Office Telegraph Clerks, whether they were sworn to secrecy in regard to telegrams, and the disclosure of their contents? He only asked this as a general question.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the Postmaster General had stated the other night that he had no responsibility in this matter; but that the responsibility respecting telegrams rested with the Home Secre- 314 tary. Now, he would like to know whether there was any warrant with respect to the Telegraph Department, and, if so, how it was exercised? Whether officials, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, periodically inspected the files of the telegrams to discover whether they contained anything that might be useful; or whether the clerks had instructions to draw attention to anything that they thought might be useful? This authority might be exercised in more than one way, and he would like to know whether the clerks were sworn to secrecy, and which of the methods he had mentioned was adopted?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
The Telegraphs Act of 1869 declares that for the purposes referred to in this debate telegrams are placed on the same footing as post letters. Therefore, everything I have said in reference to letters applies to telegrams, and telegrams are only to be dealt with under warrant from the Secretary of State, or by a Court of Law, which can order telegrams to be produced. Those are the only powers for dealing with telegrams of which I am aware.

§ MR. GRAY
said, his question was a general question, and one not dealing with the subject of warrants. He hoped the Postmaster General would inform him what security there was for the secrecy of telegrams?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
There is a Statute providing that any clerk or other person officially in possession of a telegram is liable to imprisonment for disclosing its contents.