The Earl of Radnorhoped it would not be considered an infringement of the rules of their Lordships' House if he renewed the Motion which he made a few evenings ago, on the subject of opening letters in the Post Office, under the authority of a warrant of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They were all aware—indeed, the public were aware to-day, in consequence of what had passed last night in another House—of the allegations which were made with respect to the opening of letters of private individuals in the Post Office, and in consequence of these proceedings, it was 1327 now absolutely necessary that something should be done to maintain the character of this country against the effect which such circumstances as those that were detained in the debate of last night in another place were calculated to produce. The matter had now assumed a very serious aspect; and he thought their Lordships would agree with him in thinking that the subject could not now rest where it was. It was not his intention, on that occasion, to go into the argument as to whether or not such a power ought to be allowed to exist in the Secretary of State. He was not going to raise a question as to the propriety of allowing the Secretary of State to stop letters, and open them in the Post Office. He thought it was a power which ought not to exist, but he would not now enter into that portion of the subject, nor would he even enter into the question as to whether there was a separate warrant granted to authorise the opening of each letter which had been stopped in the Post Office. He understood that according to the letter of the law, it was absolutely necessary that there should be a separate warrant to authorise the opening of each letter; but that was a matter rather of internal policy, and whatever views he might take of it, he did not intend to enter into the question on this occasion. Any man who looked at the history of this power—who looked to the object for which it was intended by the Parliament, must be convinced that the Parliament could have no view in granting it but the security of the realm and the safety of the Sovereign. It was not, however, even alleged that in the cases to which he was directing the attention of their Lordships there was any such necessity for the exercise of this power; it was quite certain that the letters of certain foreigners were opened and examined in the Post Office, although it was not alleged that the communications which those letters contained could have any possible connection with the safety of the realm or the security of the Sovereign. A petition was presented a few nights ago from a private individual, complaining that his letters had been opened in the Post Office, and that those letters contained nothing to justify such a course. The individual whose letters had been so opened was a person of eminent literary attainments, who was known to many persons in this country connected with litera- 1328 ture, and by all of whom he was admired and beloved. That was one of the individuals whose letters had been so opened and examined in the Post Office. Another petition had been presented last night from another foreigner, who had never given any ground for such a proceeding by mixing up with politics in this country, although he had, perhaps, unfortunately for himself, been mixed up with liberal politics in his own country. He had taken refuge in this country, and was well received here, and respected by all those who were acquainted with him; and this was another individual whose letters were examined, and their contents, perhaps, made known in his own country to those who might be disposed to wreak their vengeance on him, but not having him in their power, might wreak it upon others who were connected with, or who were in communication with him. The effect of such proceedings on the public mind had been very striking—for his own part he would say that such proceedings filled him with feelings of shame and disgrace —and he could not help thinking that the noble Duke opposite, who had himself done so much to raise the character of this country, who was remarkable for the straightforward and open heartedness of his conduct, would not be satisfied with proceedings which tended to injure the character of this country by making it the police-office of other countries. He (the Earl of Randor) could not help thinking that the majority of their Lordships were opposed to such a course, and he could scarcely imagine that the noble Duke opposite was not hostile to it. Under these circumstances, he should beg leave to renew his Motion for an Address to Her Majesty, for a Return of all Warrants granted by Her Majesty's Secretary of State, or any one of them, for opening letters at the Post Office, from the 1st of January, 1841, to the present time.
§ The Duke of WellingtonMy Lords, I ought to be grateful to the noble Earl for the handsome expressions he has used respecting myself, and I can assure the noble Lord I am very sensitive of the honour of my country. My Lords, I have a duty to perform in this House, as your Lordships have, in considering a Motion of this description. It is my duty to urge your Lordships to take upon this Motion that course which is most consistent with the public interests and the public security, 1329 My Lords, Parliament has thought fit to intrust the Secretary of State with a certain power to issue warrants for opening the letters of individuals in the Post Office. This is a power which has long existed in this country, as I stated on the last occasion when this subject was discussed. It is a power granted during the reign of Queen Anne, and it has existed and been exercised ever since. This power was revised a very few years ago—in the last year of the reign of His late Majesty, and the first year of the reign of Her present Majesty; this power was renewed in the Act then passed; and there is a very curious circumstance connected with it— the Postmaster-General makes a declaration that he will perform his duty strictly according to the regulations, and that all letters shall be forwarded and delivered as directed, except when required by warrant from the Secretary of State to send the letters according to the terms of the warrant. Therefore there can be no doubt whatever of the power. It is a power vested in the Secretary of State, which I venture to submit to your Lordships the Secretary of State is bound to carry into execution whenever his sense of duty renders it necessary that the power should be carried into execution. Under these circumstances I conceive that your Lordships should well consider this matter before you enter upon any inquiry, particularly in this House, on the subject of the exercise of this power; and you should be very certain the power has been abused and used for improper purposes before you make any inquiry into it. My Lords, it is very true there have been questions, remarks, and discussions in another place on this subject; but I don't know that there has been any proof whatever that any of these letters have been opened, excepting that a warrant was issued for the opening of one letter. That is all of which there is any proof;—and I have no knowledge whatever on the subject. All I can say is this—unless your Lordships are convinced by evidence before you that there has been an abuse of this power intrusted to the discretion of the Secretary of State, your Lordships ought to resist the Motion made for Papers to throw any light on the subject. Under these circumstances, I earnestly recommend your Lordships not to consent to the address the noble Earl has now moved.
The Earl of Tankervillestated, that on 1330 the death of a relative of his, who had been twice Postmaster-General, certain papers had come into his possession, and among them he found a warrant directing the Postmaster to detain and open all letters addressed to or coming from all foreign Ministers, and that warrant was signed by no less eminent a man, renowned for his patriotic zeal in the defence of the rights of the people, than Charles James Fox. There was another warrant, showing the proper application of this power, directing that not a single letter, but all letters addressed to Lord George Gordon, should be opened. What he had stated showed that this power had been exercised from a very early period; and it was quite necessary, in his opinion, that such a discretion should exist in the Secretary of State.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, it was impossible not to listen, with interest to the statement which had been just made by his noble Friend, and which afforded a strong reason why the House should interfere. It appeared that such had been the mode of conducting the Post Office and keeping its records, that important documents which ought to be kept in that office had come into the noble Lord's possession. The noble Lord had referred to two cases as if they could afford precedents for those which they were now considering, but it ought to be recollected that they were cases which had occurred in former days, and at a very different time from the present. The first of those cases occurred at a time when we were on the eve of a war. [The Earl of Tankerville: During the American war.] The first of those cases occurred at a period when it was of the utmost importance to this country that the British Minister should know what passed between foreign governments; but in the case to which their Lordships' attention was now more particularly directed, the warrant was issued, not with respect to the letters of foreign Ministers, but with reference to the letters of a private individual—a foreigner residing in this country and under the protection of our laws. It was the letters of such an individual that were opened in this case. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had not seen the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor), and he would not, therefore pledge himself to vote for it, as the terms of that Motion might be too general to make it proper or 1331 expedient for their Lordships to agree to it; but he should say, that it was impossible for the Parliament to pass over this occurrence, and not to enquire into the use and application of this power. It was said that this power had been in existence since the reign of Queen Anne; that might be very true, but they ought to consider the nature of the power. He did not know the history of all the Acts since the reign of Queen Anne on the subject; but if he looked to the Act under which this power was now exercised, he found not that the Secretary of State was empowered to do so and so, but he was protected by that Act from otherwise severe consequences, in case of opening letters. The Act did not say, that the Secretary of State was to do so and so, but the Postmaster was exempted from severe penalties by having the warrant of the Secretary of State for detaining and opening letters in the Post Office. It was evidently never intended to be applied to a case which might every day occur, but was intended only to be used in cases of great public emergency. It was admitted — it was morally proved in this case—that letters had been opened where there was no such ground for the exercise of that power. Mr. Mazzini's letters were opened, but it could not be supposed that they contained any communication which could affect the safety of this realm or the life of the Sovereign—it could not be supposed that any great public necessity existed for this, or that Mr. Mazzini was engaged in any proceeding which could affect this country. It was right that they should know why the letters of any individual were to be opened when they contained no treasonable matter, nor any communication which justified that course. The second case to which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Tankerville) had referred was that of Lord George Gordon, but in that case it was an Englishman who was concerned, and not a foreigner residing in this country, The warrant with reference to Lord George Gordon, was issued in relation to, he would not say a convicted traitor, for the jury were not inclined to find him guilty of constructive treason: but he was one whose course had been very different from the individual concerned in this case. He was looked upon by some as a madman, but he was a very mischievous madman, There was no analogy between the case of Lord G. 1332 Gordon and the present. In the case of Lord G. Gordon it was necessary, for the safety of society, that the power should be applied; but when they had cause to believe that the former practice had been departed from, of only using this power in cases of great public necessity, then he thought there was great reason to induce the Parliament to enquire into the matter. It was undoubtedly a power in the exercise of which confidence ought to be reposed in the Minister, and one in which he must necessarily be allowed a responsibility. But what was the meaning of "responsibility," if, when the application of it in any particular case was brought forward, all enquiry or explanation was refused. If any Cabinet Minister came down to either House of Parliament, and stated that he had grounds which convinced him that there was great reason to suppose that Mr. Mazzini was engaged in any treasonable conspiracy to overturn the Government of England, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would believe that there was no further reason for inquiry. He would give credence to any Cabinet Minister who would rise in either House of Parliament and state that he had reasons in his own mind deserving of credit which induced him to think that Mr. Mazzini was engaged in proceedings which made it necessary to continue such, a surveillance over him. The noble Duke opposite said that the allegations in this case were not proved to the House. How, he would ask, could they be proved? How could anything be proved if no inquiry were granted? The noble Duke admitted that he knew nothing about the circumstances which caused the opening of those letters, which caused the exercise of a power that was hurtful to every man's feelings—the exercise of which was hurtful to his own (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) feelings. It might be proper that the Government should possess such a power, to be applied in some cases; for example, in such emergencies as Lord George Gordon's riots; but if the power were to be exercised for the good of the State, it ought to be exercised in a more public manner, and every letter so opened ought to have stamped on its cover "Opened by Authority." That would be the proper manner in which to exercise it, instead of using it without the knowledge of the individual whose letter was opened, and in a manner contrary to the principles 1333 of the law, and to our feelings of honour and justice. It was against the principles of the law and the Constitution of England, to entrap men by their secret communications, and not to acquaint them of those proceedings in relation to them: it was a principle which ought not to be adhered to: for if the power were used, they ought to acquaint the persons concerned that they had opened their letters. If they were justified in opening the letters of an individual they ought not to be ashamed to tell him that they did so. They need not be ashamed to tell any individual that they opened his letters in consequence of his being engaged in villanous practices. He had not heard the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) plainly enough to say that he should vote for it; but he should say that it was a subject which ought not to be allowed to rest there. He hoped there would be some inquiry, whether by a Committee, or the production of a particular warrant, which would enable them to see on the face if there were grounds for a Committee of Inquiry. It was necessary that they should know what were the grounds for such a course of proceeding; for practices of a hateful nature which were opposed to the principles of law, as well as what was hypocritically called responsibility.
The Earl of HaddingtonMy Lords, I believe if there be any one thing in which your Lordships will cordially concur, it is this, that there is nothing which ought to be held so sacred as private communications passing through the Post Office, and that no Minister can take upon himself a more formidable responsibility than to deal rashly or lightly, or without the most extreme necessity, with the power of opening any letter passing through the General Post Office. But, on the other side, I think your Lordships will admit that it is a power that has not only existed in this country in all times, but it is one which must always exist in every country that has a Government at all. Is it to be conceived that a Secretary of State, believing there is danger to the State—danger to the Crown—danger to the country in any matter of importance, and that it was the subject of correspondence through the Post Office, that he shall not have the power of averting that evil and preventing perhaps a great calamity by exercising that power. It seemed indeed to be admitted by the noble Lords op- 1334 posite, that this power was necessary; but they seemed to think that anything which occurred abroad, in which any foreign Government was concerned, cannot possibly be the subject of the legitimate exercise of such a power as this. He heard with surprise the statement that they ought not to exercise that power with regard to a conspiracy out of this country, or when it was believed that such necessity for its exercise existed. I own that it ought not to be exercised without the utmost circumspection; but I can conceive plots being carried on on the Continent of Europe, and that it might be found very convenient for those persons who were engaged in carrying on those plots to reside in this country, under the security of the English laws, and yet those plots might be of a character to embroil this country and the whole world in war. I say that we cannot confine the exercise of this power merely to our domestic affairs, for the safety of England may be most seriously compromised by such plots, though the subject may have no immediate and direct reference to the domestic affairs of this country. The power, no doubt, is a very odious one. It must be a most unthankful power for the Secretary of State to hold, and from its very nature it is one of the exercise of which it is almost impossible for him to make any disclosures, and if your Lordships, without any Parliamentary ground being made, were to interfere with the exercise of this power, and to deny that confidence, which was not free and voluntary, but a necessary confidence, in the Secretary of State, it was a necessary consequence that however essential it might be to the safety or security of the country, the power must virtually cease to exist. I hold that no Parliamentary ground has been laid for any interference in the present instance. There was nothing in the conduct of the present Government more than in the conduct of the late Government, or of any other Government, to lead to the supposition that this power has been wantonly or unnecessarily exercised. It is possible that the Secretary of State may have been misinformed; but I know nothing about that. The Secretary of State may have been misinformed, but if he had good grounds for believing that the letter in question was dangerous, is that to form the subject of a public inquiry? If such a course were to be adopted, this power, which, I say, ought to exist in this and every other country, can no longer 1335 exist. In the case of Lord George Gordon, which has been referred to, this power had been very properly exercised. Though at present there is "neither war, nor rumours of war," though there were no riots agitating the metropolis, yet it might be necessary for the Government to exercise as much circumspection as at any other time, and he hoped their Lordships would not deny that confidence, which it was desirable, for the security of the country, should be placed in the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that they would not agree to the Motion.
Lord Campbellexpected, after the challenge of the noble Marquess, that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would have risen in his place and declared that on this occasion there had been no abuse of the power which the law had vested in the Secretary of State. With such a declaration he was sure the noble Marquess would have been perfectly satisfied; but no such declaration had been made. The first Lord of the Admiralty said that he was quite unacquainted with the circumstances, and the noble Duke said he knew no more about the matter than the noble Lord who introduced the question—now this was rather extraordinary. It had been a matter of notoriety that for some days past a charge had been brought and reiterated against the Government, against the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and considering the nature of that charge, he (Lord Campbell) should have certainly thought it would have been matter of discussion in the Government—nay, that it was matter of sufficient importance to have been discussed in the Cabinet; but here the only two noble Lords connected with the Government, who had spoken in this debate, said they knew nothing of the matter. Now, see how alarming was their opposition to the Motion of his noble Friend,— for had the greatest abuse been practised, the very same answer might be given to any Motion for enquiry. Let any case be presented to the House of the most unjustifiable violation of private correspondence, whether to gratify the malignity of some foreign potentate, or for some other purpose; the Secretary of State would acknowledge nothing—he would not admit that he had been doing what it did not become a Minister of the Crown of England to do,—that he had been permitting the Government to be made in- 1336 strumental in persecuting a person who had taken refuge in this country from a fallen state. They never could have any such evidence as a Parliamentary ground for inquiry. Suppose there was the greatest reason for believing that the power vested in the Secretary of State had been abused, and that inquiry was sought for, the Secretary of State might say, "Oh, my mouth is closed, I will not answer a word," while all his Colleagues might reply, " We know nothing about it." This was a power which undoubtedly ought to remain vested under certain regulations, and to be exercised in great emergencies, in the Government of the country, just as it was proper that the Government should have the power of breaking open houses or desks, in great emergencies. Between breaking open letters at the Post Office, and breaking open desks, there was very little difference, except indeed that the former was much worse, because that was done in secret, and was a breach of confidence, extending in its effects over a far wider field; but certainly a Secretary of State could never be justified in opening a letter at the Post Office, except under circumstances which would warrant him in seizing and opening a house or desk. It appeared to him (Lord Campbell), that a clear prima facie case for inquiry into this matter had been made out. Witnesses had not been examined at the Bar, but they had as much evidence before them as the nature of the case would allow. Here were two foreigners, the one an Austrian subject, the other a Pole, who distinctly stated that their letters had been opened at the Post Office; and the fact alleged having been established to the satisfaction of any reasonable man, he should have thought it the duty of the public officer referred to, at least, to state on his own responsibility, that he had opened these letters for the sake of the public safety, and not to gratify any foreign potentate's malignity; but no such statement had been elicited, and the public had arrived at nothing beyond the admission that certain letters had been opened. Why they had been opened, on what pretence, the Secretary of State had not condescended to expound. Surely it was monstrous, that in a time of profound peace abroad, and when there was no appearance of domestic treason or disturbance, such a gross violation of private correspondence should take place. It 1337 appeared to him perfectly essential that the matter should not be allowed to rest in its present position. The character of the country had been compromised, and it was abolutely necessary to lose no time in wiping off the stain which the honour of England had sustained; and to this end further inquiry was requisite.
Lord Broughamwished to set their Lordships right respecting what had been said of a noble Lord now no more. His noble Friend near him observed, that the statement of his noble Friend opposite was an additional reason for watching the exercise of this power, since one of its consequences was, that persons took public documents away from the public office where they ought to remain. Never had there been so unreflecting a charge made against any deceased or living person in the world. The warrant was in the proper custody when in that of the Postmaster General. It was his justification, his defence. The Post Office was not its proper place, and had nothing to do with it. The document was functus officio, and one which ought to have remained in the custody of Lord Tankerville, who was liable to an indictment for having violated the Act of Parliament, and whose only defence was the possession of the warrant. Respecting the Motion of his noble Friend, no one felt more strongly than he (Lord Brougham) did the importance of the subject, every one being more or less interested in the safety of communications through the Post Office. The power vested in the Secretary of State was one of a most odious description, and one over the exercise of which the strictest vigilance of the Legislature was required. But he did not see how they could fairly call for inquiry into the conduct of that public officer on the assertion that the power had been exercised—for it was not even charged that it had been abused— the statement being that Mr. Mazzini's letters had been opened, and that he was a respectable man. That was a very slender case against his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Mr. Mazzini might be a respectable man, and yet be so engaged in political matters as to have made it advisable for the Secretary of State to direct the opening of his letters in the Post Office. He did not know whether his right hon. Friend so directed or not, but he maintained that that was not a sufficient reason for the proposed inquiry. 1338 He knew of no instance in which a Secretary of State had ever been called on to produce the warrant under which this power was exercised, although he admitted that he was liable to be so called on to do so. Let the Secretary of State be called upon for a full explanation of the matter if good ground can be shown, which in this case had not been done. Another answer to the Motion was, that it could do no good. So far as its object might have been to produce discussion, it had been attained; but he did not see that the production of the warrant would throw any light upon the subject. He understood his noble Friend opposite to state that all the warrants he had seen were in the same form of words, and that they merely directed the Postmaster General to stop all letters to A. B. [The Earl of Tankerville: To stop all letters directed to or coming from all foreign Ministers of whatever rank, and all other letters of which specific notice had been given.] Then supposing this Motion to be granted, they would be just as much in the dark as ever, because the warrant would merely show a direction to stop all letters to and from Mr. Mazzini. One word respecting Mr. Fox. It was painful to think that so illustrious a name and one so particularly dear to all friends of liberty, civil and religious, should be mixed up with the exercise of a power of so odious a nature, and, moreover, with so very strong and sweeping an exercise of it. But then the crisis at which he issued those warrants was one of a peculiar nature—it was at the end of the American war—and, if he mistook not, at the time when the Armed Neutralities of the Northern Powers confederated against this country's naval rights, and when they were endeavouring to sweep within their net as many Foreign Powers as they could for the purpose of extending their maritime league.
§ Lord Denmansaid, he did not consider this Motion as any impeachment of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, nor was he aware of any circumstances which would lead him to say that the Secretary of State had acted improperly in the exercise of this most odious and perilous power; but he thought that circumstances had appeared, and were at present the subject of public discussion, connected with the exercise of that power which made it imperative upon Parliament 1339 to inquire into the mode in which it was exercised for the purpose of seeing whether or not it might not be necessary to apply, hereafter, proper limits to that power, whether certain restrictions should not be imposed upon the exercise of it, and whether rules should not be laid down within which alone the power could ever be usefully, beneficially, or with any consistency with honour exercised at all. It appeared that a letter had been opened from an individual who did not appear to be involved in any treasonable correspondence whatever. He did not mean to deny that the Secretary of State might have been bound to open that letter; for one of the unfortunate circumstances of the power he possessed was, that the Secretary of State was compelled in a measure, to exercise that power in the dark. Their Lordships had been told of responsibility. What! responsibility in the dark? How could there be any responsibility where public opinion could not act? Responsibility to the House of Commons? No; it was a matter of secrecy, which the Secretary of State, by the nature of the supposed duty, could not disclose. Was he responsible to the House of Lords? No; the House of Lords must suppose that the Secretary of State had done what he felt justified in doing. Was he responsible to the Government? No; because the noble Duke and the other Members of Her Majesty's Government had no knowledge whatever upon the subject. Now, he (Lord Denman) questioned very much, even upon the wide and extensive words of the Act, whether it was ever intended to give the Secretary of State this absolute power which he exercised; because what was the language of the statute of Queen Anne, which, he believed was the first Act on which all the others rested? It said that the Post officers should be subject to imprisonment and to the visitation of the law if they delayed any letter except under the warrant of the Secretary of State. How did that show in what manner the Secretary of State was in the habit of exercising his power in the time of Queen Anne? He thought it far more probable that the warrant would flow, not from the Secretary of State as an individual, but from the Secretary of State acting in concert with all the Ministers, and representing the Government, — from a sense of the necessity of the case,—that the necessity of the case might be so overpowering as to form an excuse for the vio- 1340 lation of all law no one would deny; but that the power should be supposed to exist in a manner so oppressive as it may have been, without the slightest opportunity of any reparation or any responsibility, was what he did not think an English Parliament or the English people would any longer endure. He did not consider this a question of expediency or inexpediency— he thought it a question of right and wrong. He could no more believe it necessary to show that such a power ought not to be vested in the discretion of any individual, than he felt it necessary to argue that it was wrong to pick a pocket. It might be very necessary, where crimes were impending and requiring active measures to prevent them, that measures of personal restriction of the property which a man had about his person should be exercised, but that it should flow from an Act of Parliament, giving this completely undefined and irresponsible power, was what he could not believe. With respect to what had been mentioned on the subject of Mr. Fox having issued a warrant, which was in possession of a noble Friend opposite, no doubt Mr. Fox coming into office at the time he did—a time of the utmost disturbance both foreign and domestic, when all Europe was leagued against England, and England was by no means at peace within herself—no doubt it would have been a wild abandonment of any power which he possessed, if he had not issued the usual warrant to the Postmaster of that day. But he thought the doing so must have cost Mr. Fox very dear. He (Lord Denman) should like to know the feelings of any Secretary of State when he first found himself in the execution of his duty, opening a private letter, becoming the depositary of the secrets of a private family, becoming acquainted with circumstances of which he would wish to be ignorant, meeting an individual in society, and knowing that he was in possession of secrets dearer to him than his life. He thought Mr. Fox would have said to himself under such circumstances,—
Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri.But it must have been an afflicting circumstance when he found it necessary to give such an order. He thought it was right for the Postmaster of that day to keep the warrant as a protection for himself against the operation of that law. It had been said by a noble Friend, and said truly, that some political rival or political 1341 enemy, might have succeeded him in that department, and that he might have been improperly called on to answer for that which was no crime, and, therefore, it was necessary for him to keep the warrant for his own justification. Supposing he had been rash enough with the experience he possessed, to transmit the warrant to his successor, his successor might have deprived him at once of his defence, and then he might have been punished for the act which he was originally justified in doing. Fortunately there was an inconsistency in human nature that prevented people who did possess, and who sometimes were compelled to exercise hateful powers, from acting consistently with themselves upon other occasions; and a high and dignified character might be incapable of abusing a power to the extent which was now supposed; although it never could be exercised without giving great pain to any honourable mind called upon to exercise it. But he (Lord Denman) could not help thinking, that the possession of such a power, and after what he had seen in the newspapers this morning, the circumstances of concealment, and something very like forgery, had a tendency to demoralise the public mind. It was known that some of the subordinate officers in the Post Office were in the habit of overlooking the obligations which honesty would impose upon them, and he could not think that the knowledge that the great heads of that department, and persons of superior positions exercised such a power as that now complained of, would have the effect of correcting their feelings with regard to letters intrusted to their care. It appeared to him (Lord Denman) most preposterous that when the Government imposed upon the people of this country and of all parts of the world the necessity of paying them a large revenue for doing the duty of letter-carriers, they should at the same time retain in their hands the power of opening all the letters confided to their care. [The Duke of Wellington: It is a power conferred upon them by Act of Parliament.] I am quite aware that it is given by Act of Parliament. [The Duke of Wellington: Then repeal the Act.] He thought it might be a very important question whether or not the Act should not be repealed; or, at least, whether restrictions might not be imposed which should leave a certain degree of power much more definable and responsible than that existing at present— a power subject to the revision of Parlia- 1342 ment. He apologized to their Lordships for detaining them with these observations; but this subject not having occupied his mind until these transactions were recently brought under public notice, he had considered it, and thought it necessary to declare his conviction that there ought to be some restrictions put upon the exercise of this power.
§ The Earl of Devonthought the hon. and learned Lord had opened rather a different case than that put by any preceding speaker; for he had gone to the taking away this power entirely. The simple question was, whether this power being admitted to be given by Act of Parliament to the Secretary of State to order the opening of a letter, it would answer any good purpose now to call, in the terms of the Motion submitted to their Lordship's House, for a copy of the warrant which, it was admitted by all, had been issued according to the Act of Parliament.
Lord Broughamsaid, he held in his hand a Return from the Office of the Great Seal of all the warrants from the Foreign Office, directing their Lordships to put the Great Seal to the various foreign treaties, and those warrants remained in their Lordships' custody.
The Marquess of Clanricardedid not attempt to deny the practice as pursued in the Court of Chancery.
Lord BroughamThe Chancellor is responsible, no doubt, for all the Treaties; but the Postmaster would be guilty of felony were he to open a letter without a warrant. It was, therefore, desirable for him to retain possession of it.
Lord Radnor, in reply, said, that after what he had heard from both sides of the House he should not press his Motion to a division; but withdraw it, meaning upon some future occasion to bring it forward in another shape. In what form he should again introduce this subject to their Lordships' attention he should take a little time to consider. He could understand why the noble Duke could not state whether or no this transaction was the consequence of some intimation from a foreign power, because he afterwards said he knew nothing at all about it. He apprehended that a Secretary of State would not go to his Colleagues to ask them if he should issue a warrant or not. But after this matter had been discussed so much, after it had been brought forward in the 1343 House of Commons, and mentioned by him in their Lordships' House, and again debated in the House of Commons on the previous night, and after the great sensation it had created in the country, it was not a little singular that all the Cabinet Ministers except the Secretary of State, who issued the warrant, should know nothing about it. If any one of those noble Lords opposite had got up and stated that they knew that there were sufficient grounds for issuing the warrant, he should have been ready to believe him; but none of them had ventured to say that. But the ignorance of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty was made rather more onerous than if he had known anything about the matter, by the attempting to justify the conduct of the Home Secretary by supposing the existence of some political intrigue against a foreign power, and affirming that a Secretary of State might open a letter which might lead to the opening of a war in that foreign state, which war might possibly lead to the opening of a general war. That was rather a far-fetched justification. He did not admit that the opening of a letter was a slight injury. One letter was spoken of; but a great many letters had been opened, and the practice had been going on for a length of time, which would be proved before a Committee of Inquiry. The letter of a gentleman might be pried into for the gratification of some enemy, or, as it was surmised, to pander to the purposes of some foreign power. Thus individuals were injured, and the character of this country degraded. This was a subject upon which the country felt keenly, and demanded inquiry and a proper understanding. He should again bring forward the subject, but should meanwhile consider the mode in which he should do so.
§ Motion withdrawn.