Her Majesty's Mails

y in the dark-which went far to destroy the confidence of the nation in the sanctity of its correspondence. In the session of 1844, Mr. Thomas S. Duncombe presented a petition from Mr.

would confide in his motives, and that they would not call upon him to answer any further inquiries. The speech of the Home Secretary added fuel to the flame. Had Sir James Graham entered more fully into the subject, and gone into the real state of the law, it is probable that the subject might have been allowed to drop. Not only was the slightest explanation of the principle adopted refused by the Home Secretary, but that refusal was given somewhat cavalierly. Public attention was thus roused; the most exaggerated rumours got abroad; it was openly stated by the press that a gigantic system of espionage had been established at St. Martin's-le-Grand, and now no mere general assurances of its unreality could dispel the talk or stop newspaper extravagances. Sir James Graham was abused most unreasonably. There was hardly a public print or public speaker in the kingdom that did not heap insults or expressions of disgust on his name. This state of things could not continue; accordingly, we find Lord Radnor, moving soon after in the

reat public importance to be suffered to rest; besides, it was an attractive one for the Opposition side of the House. Mr. Duncombe renewed his motion towards the end of July in the same session. It was in a slightly altered form, inasmuch as he now moved for a select committee "to inquire into a department of Her Majesty's Post-Office commonly called 'the secret or inner office,' the duties and employment of the persons engaged therein, and the authority under which the functions of the said office were discharged." Mr. Duncombe made some startling statements as to the mode and extent of the practice of letter-opening, all of which he declared he could prove if the committee was granted. The Government saw the necessity of giving way, in order that the public mind might be quieted. The Home Secretary now acknowledged, that since he was last questioned on the subject, the matter had assumed a very serious aspect, and he thought it was time that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, should be told. Though he would have readily endured the obloquy cast upon him, even though it should crush him, rather than injure the public service; and though he had endured much, especially after the votes and speeches of the Opposition leaders-all men conversant with official duties-in favour of Mr. Duncombe's former motions, he now felt himself relieved from his late reserve, and felt bound to confess that he believed it to be impossible to maintain the power confided to him longer without a full inquiry. He would now not only consent to the committee, but would desire that it should make the fullest possible inquiry, and he would promise on his part, not only to state all he knew, but lend all the resources of his Department to attain that object. In accordance with this determination, he proposed that the Committee should be a secret one, invested with the amplest powers to commence the investigation at once, and should be composed of five usually voting against the Government, viz. Sir C. Lemon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Strutt, Mr. Orde, and the O'Connor Don; and four who generally support them, viz. L

e State Paper Office and other high Government functionaries produced records and State papers of great importance, from which we learn many interesting particulars of e

tions; and if the proclamation from which the above is taken (Rymer's F?dera) is not clear on the subject, the following extract from a letter written by the one of James's secretaries to the other, Lord Conway, is sufficiently explicit: "Your Lordship best knoweth what account we shall be able to give in our place in Parliament of that which passeth by letters in

intelligence whereof cannot well be communicated but by letter of escript." Foreign and home letters shared an equal fate. On one occasion, the Venetian ambassador remonstrated openly that his letters had been delayed and read, and it was not denie

be delivered into the General or other Post-Office, and before delivery to the persons to whom they are addressed, except by an express warrant in writing under the hand of one o

ough the post, and that he had seen them opened, read, and copied. Atterbury, as well he might, asked for the authority for this practice; and, especially, if the Secretary of State had directed that his letters should be interfered with? A majority in the House of Lords decided that the question need not be answered. It is pleasant to relate that twenty-nine peers recorded an indignant protest against this decision. One of them proposed to cross-examine the Rev. (!) Edward Willes, "one of His Majesty's Post-Office decipherers," but the majority going to a still

ve "could serve no purpose but to enable the idle clerks about the office to pry into the private affairs of every merchant and gentleman in the kingdom."[121] It transpired on this occasion that a regular organization existed, at enormous expense, for the examination of home and foreign correspondence. The Secretary of the Post-Office stated that the greater part of 45,000l. had been paid, without voucher of any kind, to Robert, Earl of Oxford, for defraying the expenses of this establish

it beginning with the highest, descended even to the lowest class of officials. A writer in the Encyclop?dia Britannica, vol. xviii. p. 405 (quoting from the State Trials, vol. xviii. p. 1369), tells us, in relation to this subject, that so little attention was paid to the requirements of the Act of Queen Anne, or the Committee of the House of Commons just referred to, the very bellmen took to scrutinizing the letters given them for their bags. One of those functionaries was examined at the trial of Dr. Hensey in 1758, and deposed as follows: "When I have got all my letters together I carry them home and sort them. In sorting them I observed that the letters I received of Dr. Hensey were gene

then Home Secretary, introduced the custom in 1806, of recording the dates of all warrants granted, and the purposes for which they were issued. Since the year 1822, the whole of the warrants themselves have been preserved at the Home Office. In comparing the number of warrant

dress." What the feelings of foreign Governments were at this revelation may well be imagined. They would know, of course, that the English Government, hundreds of years ago, had not scrupled to lay violent hands on the letters of their representatives, if by any possibility they could get hold of them. When Wolsey, for example, wanted possession of the letters of the ambassadors of Charles V. he went to work very openly, having ordered "a watche should be made" in and about London, and all persons going en route to the Continent to be questioned and searched. "One riding towards Brayneford," says an early record, "when examyned by the watche, answered so closely, that upon suspicion thereof, they searched hym, and found secretly hyd aboute hym a pacquet of letters in French." In the reign of Qu

icate that they have been so detained and opened, and are forwarded by post according to their respective superscriptions." They then classed the warrants issued during the present century in the following way:-For thefts, murders, and frauds, 162; for treason and sedition, 77; foreign correspondence, 20; prisoners of war, 13; miscellaneous, 11; and for uncertain purposes, 89. Undoubtedly, with one class of letters, the Government were only performing a duty in applying the law as laid down in 1 Vict. c. 33. The information obtained by the warrants to find the locale of Chartist disaffection was described by the Committee as most valuable and useful to the Government. While the whole history of the transaction in question grates unpleasantly on English ears, there can be no doubt that in other cases-such as frauds on the banks and revenue, forgeries, murders, &c.-the power was used impartially to the advantage of individuals and the benefit of the State. Whether, however, the discoveries and the benefits were so many as to

oke against the motion, which was negatived by 240 to 145 members.[127] A few days later Mr. Duncombe renewed his attack in another form, moving that Colonel Maberly, Secretary to the Post-Office, should attend at the bar and produce certain books connected with his office. The Home Secretary resisted the motion, grounding his objection on the reports of the Committees and the necessities of the public service. Lord John Russell and a great number of the Liberal party concurring in this view, the motion was again rejected by 188 to 113.[128] For some weeks the subject was not again noticed in Parliament, and probably would have dropped; but it was a theme on which the Press could not be induced to be silent. Fresh events occurring in Italy, owing, it was said, to the past action of the English Government at the Post-Office, Mr. Sheil gave notice of a resolution, which he moved on the 1st of April, 1845, expressing regret that Gove

s in question caused a perfect paroxysm of national anger, because it was felt, throughout the length and breadth of the land, that such arrangements were repugnant to every feeling of Englishmen. Had the officers of the Government broken open letters in the same way as, under certain circumstances, the law allows the sheriff's officers to break open houses and writing-desks, there might still have been complainings, but these com

TNO

Hansar

7]

of the Post-Office in Scotland.

Secret Committ

Journal, xx

Journal, vol.

for the proper performance of these very unclerical duties, the Rev. Dr. was first r

] Fr

Secret Committee

e Secret Committee

. Commons'

ansard,

8]

s sacred; that 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 be in the wind, som