The Earl of Radnormoved for the appointment of a Committee of which he had given notice for this evening. He would move for the Committee precisely in the words of his notice, with the exception only of adding the name of another foreign gentleman of the name of Stolzman, whose letters had recently been opened at the Post Office. He would persist in his Motion notwithstanding what had passed in the other House of Parliament, although he had been told that the appointment of a Committee in the other House on the same subject as that to which his Motion referred, namely, the opening of letters at the Post Office, would render it unnecessary for him to proceed further. But he had two very good reasons for persisting in the course he had adopted: the first was, that if a Committee of that House were appointed to investigate this matter, it would carry with it a weight which a Committee of the House of Commons could not possess, inasmuch as any evidence taken before their Lordships' Committee would be upon oath, which was not the case before Committees of the House of Commons, and moreover their Committee would have the benefit of the great legal authorities in the investigation; and the other reason was his sense of the great importance of the question itself, an importance which had increased not only every day since the subject was first mooted in that and the other House, but which was constantly manifesting itself in the excitement and irritation which the subject created in the public mind. The question had now assumed a very different aspect from that which it 297 bore when it was first brought forward. For his own part he had not believed at first that the power in question was ever exercised, and the public in general had been very confident that it never was exercised, but that the letters which passed through the Post Office were perfectly sacred and untouched, and that no violation of that sacredness was practised; but the revelations which had been made since in that House had opened the eyes of the public, and though he believed no one, either in that or the other House had admitted that it had ever before been exercised in the way it was by the present Secretary for the Home Department, yet from what had been said by the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) and by his noble Friend opposite, the son of a former Postmaster (the Earl of Tankerville), it appeared to have been the practice for the Secretary of State to give an order for the opening of particular letters; but when they came to consider the acts which were relied upon as justifying the practice, it appeared to him from the first to be very doubtful whether there was sufficient authority to justify the proceeding. On a previous evening a noble Friend of his had stated that one main object of the first establishment of a General Post Office was avowed to be the facility it would afford for obtaining a knowledge of the contents of letters passing through it. He (Lord Radnor) had taken the liberty, on that occasion, of saying that he did not believe that was the main reason for passing the Ordinance, as it was called, for the first establishment of the Post Office in this country. He had since referred to Scobell's Collection and although he admitted that such an object was mentioned in the preamble, yet he did not believe it was the main or principal object. He would read an extract from the preamble, and their Lordships would see that although it stated that such intelligence might be thereby obtained, and it was strange that such an object should be stated, yet it was not the great, or main, or primary object. The preamble was to the effect, that it had been found by experience that the erection and settling of one General Post Office, for the carrying of letters or rescripts between this country and Scotland, and Ireland, and parts beyond the seas, was the best means of promoting the convenience of trade and commerce, and also of carrying the public despatches: the preamble then went on to say that the 298 object was not confined to that only, but that such an establishment would be the means of discovering treasonable and wicked designs, which were daily set on foot, and which could not well be communicated but by letter. Therefore, however strange it might be that this matter should be introduced in the preamble, it did not appear to be the main object of the Ordinance, and in the time of Charles II., when the Post Office was established by Act of Parliament, there was no such thing in the Act. But it was said that there was this provision in the Act of Queen Anne, and that it was continued in subsequent Acts, and repeated in a certain form in the last Act, that of the 1st Victoria, which authorised the Secretary of State to stop, delay, and order the opening of letters. Now, he said there was no such thing. The provision of the Act, it was true assumed that the Secretary of State had such a power, for it stated that no letter should be detained or opened except under the express warrant of the Secretary of State, and that penalties for opening letters should not attach to the officials of the Post Office if they had received authority from the Secretary of State. But their Lordships would see that this was a very different thing from giving the Secretary of State such a power. It assumed that by law, or by prescription, or in some way, such an authority existed, but he should like to know where it existed. He hoped to hear the opinion of some noble and learned Lord on this point, but he could not find such an authority either in the Common or the Statute Law. By the Common Law it certainly could not exist, because the Post Office itself was too recent an institution for the Common Law to sanction any of its practices, and Statute Law which gave such a power to the Secretary of State, there was none. He was not aware of any case in which this question had been brought directly before a court of justice, nor had there been any judicial decision upon it in any Court, as it regarded the opening of letters in their passage through the Post Office; but there had been cases in former years before the Courts in which points were raised analogous to that which had now arisen. In Mr. Wilkes's time some opinions were given in cases which excited a great sensation at the time, and which bore very strongly upon this case. In one thing, certainly, he (Lord Radnor) had been greatly in error before he made the inquiries which he had since been enabled to make. He had believed that the 299 Secretary of State was ipso facto a conservator of the peace throughout England, but this was denied by Lord Camden, in Entick and Carrington, Lord Camden said, "I will not deny that he can commit for treason." It was at that time set up that the Secretary of State was ipso facto a justice and conservator of the peace throughout England. Chief Justice Holt had given an opinion, from which Lord Camden differed in that elaborate opinion pronounced by him (for the judgment delivered by Lord Camden, in the case of Entick v. Carrington, in 1765, was evidently the result of great consideration). Lord Camden said:—"Chief Justice Holt has given on a former occasion an opinion that the Secretary of State can commit for treason. I am forced to deny that the opinion of Chief Justice Holt is law, if it be taken to extend beyond treason." The argument was, that the Secretary of State could not administer an oath, and that, therefore, he could not commit. Chief Justice Holt's opinion was formed on the case of Anderson (whether Anderson was the name of the case or of the reporter, he did not know); but Chief Justice Holt gave an opinion on it, and Justice Rokeley was of the same opinion, that as the Secretary of State could administer an oath, he could commit for treason. But Lord Camden said, "I know that he cannot administer an oath." If, then, the Secretary of State could not perform the functions of a justice of the peace, by what authority could he issue this warrant? If it was by the Common Law, as Lord Camden said with regard to the issue of a warrant, how happened it that no law-book mentioned it? But it was said, if there was no law in favour of the power there was a usage. Now he would read what Lord Mansfield said, in the case of the King v. Leach and Money. Lord Mansfield said:—
Then as to the authorities, Lord Hale and all the others hold that an uncertain warrant is void. It is said that the usage is so, and that many such warrants had been issued since the Resolution; but such a usage to be law ought to be communiter usitata et approbata, and such a one as it would be mischievous to overturn—[he believed no one would say that of this power]—and this is only the usage of a particular law office, and contrary to the practice of all other conservators of the peace.If it were argued that it was always the usage and practice for the Secretary of State to open the letters, then, according 300 to the opinion of Lord Mansfield, it should be communiter usitate et approbata. In a case where the usage and constant practice of an office was urged, Lord Mansfield said that it was only the usages of a particular office, and that it was contrary to the general usage; and Lord Ashton said that there was no doubt whatever as to the illegality of the warrant. If there were no law and usage in support of it, and that the power was of the nature which he had described, what then became of the right of the Secretary to issue his warrant for the opening of these letters? In the case of Carrington, which was one where private papers were seized on in a House by the King's messenger, Lord Camden said that such papers "were the dearest property, and so far from there being a right to seize them, they could hardly bear inspection, and although the eye, according to the law of England, could not commit a trespass, yet the fact of the inspection of those secret papers would aggravate the trespass. Where was the written law that gave such a power? He could safely answer there was none." Now, that was the opinion of Lord Camden with respect to the seizure of private papers in the possession of an individual, and with his full knowledge; what, then, would he have said had he been told, that the law compelled persons under penalties to send their letters by no other conveyance than the General Post, and that those letters might there be seized and examined by another public officer? What would Lord Camden have said, had he been told that an officer of the Government came down to the Post Office, and by virtue of a warrant laid hands on the letters of individuals, opened them; read their private correspondence, and made himself master of the secrets of families? How much stronger, then, was this case than the former! The Ordinance in Scobellstated, that a great advantage of the Post Office was the facility it afforded to commerce and communication; but if the power of detaining letters and examining them were to be exercised, as it had been but recently, see what evils would result, and the great injustice that might be done by the detention of commercial correspondence in the Post Office. Let them look to the case of a bill of exchange. Notice of dishonour of a bill of exchange, transmitted through the post at the proper time, would fix a responsibility on an endorser, from which in the case of neglect or delay he would be exonerated. See the very great injustice 301 that might thus be done, although the Ordinance stated that the principal advantage arising from the establishment of the Post Office would be an advantage to commerce—what immense injustice might be done by the exercise of such a power by the Secretary of State. Could it be said that letters were not delayed in the Post Office? There was no doubt that they were. He knew a Gentleman whose letters had been delayed—he had been in communication with a gentleman who stated that his letters had been delayed in the Post Office; that Gentleman was ready to prove that they had been delayed in the Post Office, and if their Lordships would grant this Committee to inquire into the practices in relation to delaying and opening letters in the Post Office, he (the Earl of Radnor) would be able to prove it. There was one argument which had been greatly relied on with reference to the exercise of this power by the Secretary of State, namely, that it was necessary for the safety of the State—an argument which was very shortly and ably disposed of by Lord Camden. He (the Earl of Radnor) would not say that he could not conceive that there might not arise circumstances which would warrant such an interference, but he hoped he never should witness such circumstances; and he should say that to anticipate them by an Act of Parliament was the most foolish thing which could be done. He could not help thinking that when the Secretary of State thought the public safety required such an examination of letters, he ought to open them upon his own responsibility. If the law were to be violated with the object of securing the safety of the state by seizing upon correspondence, then the Secretary of State ought to violate the law upon his own responsibility, and, having done so, he ought to come down to Parliament and boldly say he had done so because there had been a public necessity for it, and call on Parliament to protect him from the consequences, that at least would be a manly proceeding; but Parliament ought not to ancicipate such a necessity for that course by the provisions of a bill. Those who urged the necessity of opening the letters, in order to secure the safety of the State, supposed the case of correspondence, the seizure and examination of which might prevent rebellion or disturbance at home; but such a necessity for the interference of the Secretary of State could never have been anticipated with respect to the letters of foreigners. It appeared to him (the Earl of 302 (Radnor), that this detention and examination of the letters of foreigners was a breach of the laws of hospitality, which was revolting to his mind—which was revolting to the public mind—and which he was satisfied was revolting to their Lordships' minds. Why did they open the letters of those foreigners? What had we to do with the internal affairs of other countries. If foreigners who resided here did not violate the laws of this country, they ought to be allowed to enjoy the benefit of these laws. He remembered a time when there were stringent provisions in force in this country with respect to foreigners. He remembered the provisions of the Alien Act, and he remembered them with shame. He recollected an atrocious case under the Alien Act, in which a foreign gentleman was sent out of this country, although he had committed no political offence; but he was sent out of it in consequence of a private transaction which had no connection whatever with political affairs. He was desirous that foreigners should not be exposed to this detention and opening of their letters. He (the Earl of Radnor) did not know how many other letters of foreigners had been opened in the Post Office; but he knew that the letters of two individuals had been detained, namely, the letters of Mr. Mazzini and Mr. Stolzman. Mr. Mazzini was a Gentleman of high literary attainments, of considerable connections in his own country, and of very liberal opinions—indeed he was an enthusiast in the cause of liberalism. He had been seven years in this country, and he assured him (the Earl of Radnor) that during his stay here he had totally and carefully kept himself apart from any connection with faction or party of any kind, as regarded this country. What right then had they, under these circumstances, to open the letters of Mr. Mazzini? Why was he subjected to this espionage? What provocation had he given, or what reason could be assigned for such proceedings? Would the Secretary say that Mr. Mazzini had afforded any reason to make us believe that he was doing or attempting anything dangerous or hostile to this country. He believed that the fact would be found to be totally the contrary. Mr. Stolzman also said, that he never afforded the slightest cause for such treatment—he said that he never did anything which had a tendency dangerous or hostile to this country, and yet his letters had been detained in the Post Office. The authorities at the Post Office had opened the letters of an indi- 303 vidual whose habits and pursuits forbade the inference that he was engaged in any proceedings of a nature to warrant this detaining of his correspondence. It was true he was engaged in the publication of works, the object of which was to propagate liberal opinions. But was that a crime in England? He (the Earl of Radnor) thought it was the boast of Englishmen that this country was a place of refuge for persons who were obliged to leave their own country in consequence of their professing liberal opinions. He was himself the descendant of a family who fled to England in consequence of their liberal opinions; and he could not acquiesce in this conduct towards foreigners in this country merely because they professed liberal opinions. What right existed for opening the letters of Mr. Stolzman? He was the Friend of Mr. Mazzini, but his letters were not detained until about the time of the arrival of the Emperor of Russia in this country. They had a right to know why this insult was offered to Mr. Stolzman. In a letter which appeared in one of the papers at the time of the arrival of the Emperor, there was a recommendation that no Pole should murder the Emperor of Russia—was there any reason to suppose that Mr. Stolzman was going to assassinate the Emperor 3 Another gentleman was taken up in consequence of a charge against him that he had said something about shooting the Emperor of Russia, but it turned out that the charge had arisen from the circumstance of this gentleman having seen a pair of pantaloons in a tailor's shop, of a peculiar construction, and upon being told that they were for the Emperor of Russia, he said he hoped they would "suit" him. It was evident, with regard to the case of Mr. Mazzini, that his pursuits were not those which were calculated to lay him open to the suspicion of conduct which would justify this detention of his letters. He was a gentleman of literary habits, and his great wish was the propagation of useful information. It appeared, that being a person of great literary attainments, he was very desirous of propagating knowledge. It appeared also, that he had been mainly instrumental in establishing in London a school for those unfortunate Italian and Sardinian boys who were to be seen going about our streets with monkeys and organs; so that instead of their being left to lounge about the streets, or resort to ale-houses, or go to those miserable places called their homes, where they could hardly be said to be kept 304 alive, they might have places to go to where they would be instructed in reading, writing, geography, and other matters. It seemed, however, that Mr. Mazzini was thought dangerous on this account, and that a priest attached to the Sardinian Embassy had raised an opposition to his plan, because religious instruction was not included. He recollected the same objection was made by a right rev. Prelate not now in his place against the evening classes at Exeter Hall; he said the people should not have evening classes, because there was no religious instruction communicated in those classes; so in this instance the objection was, that no religious instruction was given, although there was moral instruction; but, if there was no religious instruction, surely it was better that these boys should have been taught reading and writing, rather than be suffered to lounge about the streets, or herd in those miserable hovels provided for them by those who made money by their perambulations through London. Surely the establishment of this school was of itself an indication that the disposition and habits of this foreigner were not such as should have exposed him to such espionage as had been practised on this occasion. He said, therefore, that a Committee should be granted in order to ascertain what was really the law, and what had been the practice on this subject. Consideration for the character of the country alone, as the friend of freedom and hospitality, should induce them to inquire into a practice which was so abhorrent to the national feelings, and so disreputable to those who resorted to it. Without believing it to be true that there was such a thing as the Secret Office where, as he had stated, the bags from particular places and streets were subject to examination—willing to believe it untrue, still he thought the very fact that this power was known to exist and be exercised, should induce their Lordships to examine into the subject. The moral effects of the practice were of the worst sort. He was not inclined to be a very great friend of the present Government, with the exception of the noble Duke opposite, for whom he had always entertained the highest and most sincere respect for those qualities which characterised him, but principally for that straight-forwardness of character and conduct which he had shown on all occasions, and which no word in the English language would describe so well as the French word loyauté; but he 305 would remind them of the mischievous moral effect which it would produce, if the Government of the country were exposed—to be despised—exposed to the contempt of the public—as they must necessarily be if such practices were continued. There would be other moral evils of great extent produced by a continuance of such practices. They heard sometimes of the conscience of the State, a phrase which he (the Earl of Radnor) thought was mere nonsense, as far as it related to particular sects or religious opinions; but it was quite different, so far as the Government were concerned, and they ought to take care and not to violate morality. The Government ought to take care and not set an example to the country of fraud and treachery and forgery such as had been exhibited in these cases, and which merited so much disapprobation. He (the Earl of Radnor) received the other day a begging letter, which he answered. It contained enclosed the letter of another person, which he returned; and two days after he received another letter, with the counterfeit of his own seal, with a forgery of his own seal. Did not the Post Office in this country do the same? and was not that forgery? He should be very glad to hear that the authorities at the Post Office had not done so. He should be glad if it could be denied that the Government had set in this matter an example of falsehood, and forgery, and treachery—it was felt to be treachery. What did France say on the subject? It gave him the most sincere pleasure to perceive that M. Guizot denied that he had ever authorised such a practice in France; but no one could utter such a denial here. No noble Lord in that House could make the same statement which M. Guizot had made, and he was ashamed that it could not be done. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would grant a Committee to enquire into this practice, and the extent of its operation. Foreign countries had denied the authorization of the practice, but Englishmen had not been able to do so. He had spoken warmly with respect to the disgraceful occurrences which had taken place, but he felt warmly on the subject, and he hoped their Lordships would not refuse to take this first step in putting a stop to a practice which was so disgraceful. The noble Earl concluded by moving—That a Secret Committee be appointed to inquire into the Practice of detaining and opening Letters, under the Provisions of the 1st Victoria, c. 36, and more particularly into the 306 Circumstances under which the Letters of Mr. Mazzini, a Literary Foreigner, and of Captain Charles Stolzman, a Pole, residing in England, have been opened.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: My Lords, I fully admit that this question has at last been brought to a condition in which it is perfectly necessary that it should be inquired into. I think, my Lords, that the practice and the law and everything relating to the case ought now to be inquired into, particularly when I find a man in the station of the noble Earl opposite attributing to the Government, and is the mouthpiece of those who discharge upon the Government, charges of treachery and fraud and forgery. It is full time, my Lords, when such charges are made, that the subject should be inquired into. But, my Lords, in making this inquiry, it is necessary to inquire into the practice and the law, and not to go into a roving inquiry of the description which the noble Lord indicated in his speech—not an inquiry into whether letters addressed to this man or that man have been opened, or whether "treachery and fraud and forgery" have been committed with respect to those letters, and whether or not all the circumstances adverted to in the noble Lord's speech can be proved. No, my Lords, the real subject to inquire into is the law, and the practice under the operation of the law, and to report it to the House, in order that your Lordships may see whether or not it is expedient that the law should be continued, and, if it should be continued, under what modifications or restrictions. A great portion of the speech of the noble Lord was directed entirely to a total and immediate repeal of the law. [The Earl of Radnor: "It is not law."] My Lords, the noble Earl may be justified in entertaining that opinion with respect to the expediency of putting an end to the law, but he will not, I believe, find many to agree with him in that opinion, and I, for my part, do not agree with him. If, however, I thought that this power was exercised now, or had been ever exercised in the manner described by the noble Lord in his speech, that is to say, applied for the purpose of private interests, or for any other purpose whatever, except the public benefit—I say it is a law which ought to be repealed, and the power put an end to forthwith. This power, my Lords, stands on the broad grounds of public 307 interest, and it stands upon nothing else; and if I cannot show that it stands on that ground, or if it should be proved that it was ever exercised on any other ground than public interest, I say that the person who exercised the law on such grounds is deserving of the censure of the public and of your Lordships. The noble Earl, in one part of his speech, said that the Secretary of State ought to take upon himself the responsibility of exercising this power; that there ought to be nothing like a recognition of it by the law; but that the Secretary of State should take upon himself the exercise of the power on his own responsibility in cases where he found the public interest required it. That is, my Lords, exactly what the law does, as I will show you presently; and, if your Lordships are convinced, and the Parliament is convinced, that it is expedient, that under certain circumstances, this power should be carried into execution, then it will be your duty to frame the law in such a manner that it can be carried into execution without a breach of the law, at the same time that you have the power of checking the Act, and not to leave it to the Secretary of State to break the law on every occasion on which he finds it necessary to exercise that power for the public benefit. It is not the duty of the Secretary of State to break the law when he feels it necessary to exercise that power for the public interests—it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to break the law on every occasion when he thinks the exercise of that power is necessary. With respect to the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, I should certainly object to the appointment of a Committee of this House for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances attending the opening of the letters of every individual who comes to this House with a petition to your Lordships, stating that his letters had been opened, as has been stated in this case. If letters have been opened in this case, as it has been stated, then those individuals can apply to the law—they can go to a justice of the peace, and complain to him that their letters had been opened, and the persons so opening them would be guilty of a misdemeanour, unless he could produce an authority for opening such letters from the Secretary of State. Then, my Lords, we come to the warrant of the Secretary of State. The noble 308 Lord opposite went into along discussion, through which I will not follow him, with respect to the power of the Secretary of State, and as to whether he had power, as a justice of the peace, or in any other capacity, to issue general warrants. The Secretary of State, my Lords, is the officer of the Sovereign—the officer of Her Majesty's Government, and the Post Office is one of the Departments under Her Majesty's Government, and the Secretary of State has a right to send his order to that Office, and unless the Parliament bound him especially to refuse, the Postmaster must obey the order of the Secretary of State, Her Majesty's Officer. What happens then? The Parliament provides that the letters in the Post Office must be delivered safely, and not detained, except in certain cases which are declared in the Act, and one of which was on the authority of the warrant of the Secretary of State. The Parliament then recognised the power of the Secretary of State to issue his warrant for the opening of the letters—nay, it goes further, for Parliament requires the Postmaster General to declare that he will deliver all letters as posted, unless he is required to detain or open them by the warrant of the Secretary of State.
§ The Duke of WellingtonThe Parliament requires the Postmaster to declare that he will deliver the letters, except when a warrant is issued by the Secretary of State to authorise him in detaining them. There is no doubt, my Lords, as to the law. True, there is no express authority in the law to enable the Secretary of State to issue his warrant.
§ The Duke of WellingtonThere is no express authority in the law, but he has the right to convey Her Majesty's authority to every officer of Her Majesty's Government of all descriptions. He conveys the order, and the Parliament recognises his power to do so, in making it an exception to the law where such a warrant is issued, and requires the Postmaster General to have respect to that exception in carrying the law into execution. The question in such a case must always turn on the exercise of the power, and I say, on the part of my right hon. Friend, that he 309 did his duty as Secretary of State, and I consider myself responsible, as every other Member of Her Majesty's Government is, for his (Sir J. Graham's) act, and I say, he performed no act which he was not authorized to do, and which was not founded on the broad principle on which the power rests, namely, a sense of what was necessary for the public interests. The noble Lord talked of exemptions in the case of foreigners, and a breach of the rights of hospitality towards foreigners residing in this country; but if foreigners act in a manner inconsistent (I charge nobody with misconduct, I put the case hypothetically)—but if foreigners act in a manner inconsistent with the interests of this country, in which they are residing, are they not guilty of a breach of the laws of hospitality? And is it fit that the Secretary of State should allow such acts to be committed with his knowledge? Is he, having information that such acts are in the course of being committed to allow such acts to be committed without taking measures to obtain a more perfect knowledge of them. My Lords, it is the proud distinction of the policy of this country that its objects and its interests are those of peace—not only peace amongst ourselves, but peace throughout the world; and to promote the independence, and security, and prosperity of every country in the world. Your Lordships saw the pains which were taken last year, and have been taken every year, and are now going on, to preserve peace throughout the world. Look at the acts of mediation carrying on lately, and even now, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the aid of other nations, to preserve peace throughout the world; and why? Because it is the undeniable interest of this country to maintain peace everywhere. Suppose, then, my Lords, that foreigners here are exerting themselves to produce results in a foreign country, and exciting others to rebel in a foreign country, and providing aids for that purpose, and fitting out expeditions in parts of Her Majesty's dominions, such as Corfu, or Malta, or elsewhere, to disturb the peace of Italy, is that, or is it not, I ask, a breach of the laws of hospitality? I say, it is an act inconsistent with the interests of this country, and that it is the duty of the Government of this country to prevent it. It is an act which it is the duty of the Secretary of State, if he has a knowledge 310 that such acts are going on, to interfere, to obtain the best information. My Lords, we have seen some remarkable events in recent times. Why, it is but a few years ago since there was an invasion of a neighbouring country from this country fitted out in the midst of the Session of Parliament, under the eyes of Her Majesty's Government, which was all but successful. Was that an act consistent with the honour and interest of this country! Would it not have been the duty of the Government, if they had information of it, to have prevented that act of invasion? I want to know if that was not the case? Have we not felt ourselves harassed by wars of sympathy carried on on our frontiers? Have we not felt the inconvenience of such a state of things, and the injury done by such wars? And is it possible, can it be pretended, because foreigners are here enjoying the hospitality of this country, they are to be exempted by the laws of hospitality from observing the laws and interests of this country, and that the Government are to to sit by, and do and say nothing, but let them go on until they strike the blow! Your Lordships must know what has happened in many parts of the world. Why, within a very few days, accounts have been received of an expedition which sailed from part of Her Majesty's dominions, to make an invasion of the territory of an ally of Her Majesty, and this connected with individuals, such as I have just described, resident in this country. I say, my Lords, these are circumstances which cannot be kept out of sight in a discussion of this kind, and I mention them now becaue I have a right to mention them in answer to the observations of the noble Earl. You will have to consider this by-and-by, when you come to deliberate whether or not it is expedient to continue this Act of Parliament now in force with respect to the detention of letters in the state in which it is, or under what circumstances such a power ought to be exercised, for even according to the noble Earl, such a power must exist. What I say, is, that in case you determine upon an inquiry, it should not be an inquiry directed to particular cases. The case stated to-night affords no ground for such an inquiry—the complaint should not be made here; this House has no jurisdiction in the matter: the complaint ought to be made to a magistrate; but if you should think it advisable that there should 311 be an inquiry, I would submit that it should be such as has been granted to the other House of Parliament, namely, "to inquire into the state of the law in respect to the detaining and opening of letters at the General Post Office, and into the mode under which the authority given for such detaining and opening has been exercised, and to report their opinions and observations thereupon to the House." I should suggest that the Committee should be formed indifferently of both sides of the House, excluding from it all persons in office, or connected with office in any manner; that the Committee should be so framed as to be entirely impartial—consisting of a majority of noble Lords sitting on the other side of the House, that it may give general satisfaction to the public, and that this power may be placed on such a footing that no abuse may come of it. I say and declare that I firmly believe my right hon. Friend has exercised this power solely and entirely on the ground of the public interest, in just the same way that, as far as I have known and read, it has been exercised by his predecessors in office; but I am quite ready to have this inquiry, since it is thought desirable. My Lords, I move that
A Secret Committee be appointed to inquire into the State of the Law in respect to the detaining and opening of Letters at the General Post Office, and into the Mode under which the Authority given for such detaining and opening has been exercised, and to report their Opinion and Observations thereupon to the House.These are precisely the words made use of by the House of Commons in appointing a similar Committee, and I hope they will be satisfactory to the House. The noblemen whom I shall move to be elected on this Committee are, the Duke of Bedford, the Earl of Burlington, Lord Cottenham, Lord Brougham, the Earl of Powis, Earl Somers, and the Bishop of London.
The Marquess of Normanbywas anxious that the noble Duke's Motion should be substituted for that of his noble Friend, because that Motion included in the inquiry, the acts of himself and Lord Normanby when in office, to which the Motion of his noble Friend did not extend. As far as he was concerned, he desired to have the whole matter thoroughly sifted, conscious that it would be found he had exercised this invidious, this unpleasant, but still, in some cases, necessary power, only 312 in accordance with the strict dictates of duty. As the Committee was granted, it would be unnecessary to protract the discussion on this subject on the present occasion, and he would, therefore, only trouble their Lordships with a very few words. He had seen with much surprise that what had fallen from him on a former occasion had been made use of in another place, as though he had expressed an opinion that no information should be given on the subject, whereas he had said nothing whatever to justify such an inference. He must also protest against a doctrine which the noble Duke had laid down, as he understood the noble Duke, with reference to the circumstance under which he considered foreign letters might be opened at the Post Office. Did the noble Duke really mean to say, that if any foreign power took umbrage at exiles in this country having correspondence with their friends abroad, our Post Office ought to be placed at the disposal of such foreign government, that the correspondence of these parties ought to be detained at our Post Offiee, read, and frequently submitted to the ministers of the particular power? If such a doctrine as this were admitted, it would be impossible to limit the extent of the mischief which would ensue, the injury that might be inflicted on innocent parties within the grasp of the offended power, who, in their communications with their friends in England might have given utterance to sentiments which in their cooler moments they would themselves recall, but which would be vindictively resented by the power to whose proceedings they applied. Such a power as this should never be exercised but for the preservation of our internal safety, or the vindication of our own laws. He perceived that the noble Duke's Motion applied to Ireland also. He was especially anxious that the Irish Post Office should be inquired into, because there had been circulated within the last few hours some most absurd statements respecting the exercise of this power by him (Lord Normanby) when in office in Ireland. He would distinctly and emphatically say, in answer to these misrepresentations, that while he was in Ireland, as when in office in England, in no one instance had this power been exercised by him for any political purpose whatever. In the very few instances in which it was made use of, it was applied to those cases of low Ribbonism, which could not be ferreted out by other means.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonbegged to say, that he had never expressed anything like an opinion that this power should be placed at the disposal of, or that any correspondence should be handed over to, any foreign power. He had said, that it was important that the Government should have the power of watching all foreigners resident in this country, with reference to disturbing the peace of foreign countries; but he had never said anything of handing over their letters to any foreign power.
The Marquess of Normanbywished to know whether the letters of Mr. Mazzini had been submitted to the representatives of any foreign power?
§ The Duke of WellingtonI have no knowledge of it.
§ The Earl of Aberdeen; I can more readily answer that question, and I can assure the noble Lord that not one syllable of the correspondence has been communicated to any person whatever.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that finding a noble Duke whom he had proposed to place on the Committee, was out of the House, and that another noble Lord was indisposed to serve, he begged, to substitute two other noble Lords in their place. The noble Duke named the Committee as follows;—Earl Somers, Earl of Burlington, Earl of Roseberry, the Bishop of London, Lord Colchester, Lord Brougham, Lord Cottenham.
Lord Campbellexpressed his great satisfaction at the composition of the Committee, and more especially that two such eminent lawyers as his noble and learned Friends had been nominated upon it. He was convinced that the result of their inquiries would be to discover that no such power as that claimed by the Secretary of State existed; that the provisions of the Act only went to indemnify the Postmaster General and his subordinates, leaving the power of the Secretary of State what it was by the Common Law and nothing more. He was quite clear that the Committee would find that a necessity existed for a Bill of Indemnity in favour of the Secretary of State, who had issued these warrants.
§ In answer to the Marquess of Lansdowne,
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the Post Office of Ireland would be included in the inquiry.
§ Original Motion withdrawn.
314§ Secret Committee appointed as proposed by the Duke of Wellington.
§ House adjourned.