During the last century, the practice of granting warrants was exceedingly common; and they might be had on the most trivial pretences. It was not the practice to record such warrants regularly in any official book,[119] and few are so recorded: we can only guess at their number from the frequent mention made of them in the State trials of the period, and in other incidental ways. In 1723, at Bishop Atterbury's trial, copies of his letters were produced and given in evidence against him. A clerk from the Post-Office certified to the fact that they had passed through 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 greater length, resolved: "That it is the opinion of this House that it is not consistent with the public safety to ask the decipherers any questions which may tend to discover the art or mystery of deciphering."[120] Again, at the trial of Horne Tooke for high treason in 1795, a letter written to him by Mr. Joyce, a printer, was intercepted at the Post-Office, and was stated by the prisoner to be the immediate occasion of his apprehension. On his requiring its production, a duly certified copy was brought into Court by the Crown officers and given in evidence.

Twelve years after the trial of Bishop Atterbury, members of both Houses became alarmed for the safety of their correspondence, and succeeded in getting up an agitation on the subject. Several members of the House of Commons complained that their letters had been opened. Revelations were made at this time which remind us strongly of the episode of 1844, both discussions resulting in a parliamentary committee of inquiry. It was stated in the debate of 1735, that the liberty which the Act gave "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 establishment. Among the principal annual expenses were the salaries of the chief decipherers[122] (Dr. Willes and his son), 1,000l.; the second decipherer, 800l.; the third, 500l.; four clerks, 1,600l.; doorkeeper, 50l.; incidental charges, but principally for seals, 100l. The result of the inquiry was, that the Committee condemned the practice, and the House declared that it was a breach of privilege on the part of the Government to use the power except in the exact manner described in the statute.

Whether any real improvement took place may best be judged by the following circumstances. Walpole, who doubtless carried his prerogative in those matters beyond any two Secretaries of State we could mention, lent his ear to both public and private applications alike, issuing warrants even to further cases of private tyranny. In the Report of the Secret Committee, p. 12, we find that a warrant is granted, in 1741, for what purpose may be judged by the following: "At the request of A, a warrant is issued to permit A's eldest son to open and inspect any letters which A's youngest son might write to two females, one of which that youngest son had imprudently married." And this inquisitorial spirit beginning with the highest, descended even to the lowest class of officials. A writer in the Encyclopædia 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 generally directed abroad and to foreigners; and I, knowing the Doctor to be a Roman Catholic, advised the examining-clerk at the office to inspect his letters." This witness, in answer to the questions, "How came you to know Dr. Hensey to be a Roman Catholic?" and "What had you to do with his religion?" clinched his evidence thus: "We letter-carriers and postmen have great opportunities to know the characters and dispositions of gentlemen, from their servants, connexions, and correspondents. But, to be plain, if I once learn that a person who lives a genteel life is a Roman Catholic, I immediately look upon him as one who, by education and principle, is an inveterate enemy to my King and country."

At the beginning of the present century an improvement was carried out. It was seen that the indiscriminate issue of the warrants was stimulated and fostered by the fact that no account was kept of them. As a means of placing a necessary check upon the officers, Lord Spencer, 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 warrants issued by different Home Secretaries during the present century, we find that Sir James Graham enjoys the unenviable notoriety of having granted the greatest number, though the fact is partly explained by the commotion which the Chartists made in the north of England, 1842-3.

The revelations made in the two Committees with reference to foreign correspondence, especially that of foreign Ministers accredited at the English Court, were very remarkable, and not likely to induce confidence in our postal arrangements on the part of other powers. It was shown that in times of war whole foreign mails had been known to have been detained, and the letters almost individually examined. The Lords' Committee went so far as to say it was clear, "that it had been for a long period of time and under successive administrations, up to the present time, an established practice that the foreign correspondence of foreign Ministers passing through the General Post-Office should be sent to a department of the Foreign Office, before the forwarding of such correspondence, according to the address." 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 Queen Mary, Gardiner ordered that the messengers of Noailles, the French ambassador, should be taken and searched in much the same manner.[123] Notwithstanding this, they would scarcely be prepared for the information that later Governments, with less to fear, had preferred more secret measures, establishing a system of espionage which was certainly not in accordance with the English character, or likely to subserve the interests of peace in Europe. That the arrangement with regard to foreign mails was unlawful, may be judged by the prompt action which was taken in the matter. "Since June, 1844, the Postmaster-General," so runs the Lords' Report two months later, "having had his attention called to the fact, that there was no sufficient authority for this practice, has discontinued it altogether."

The Commons' Committee reported that the letter-opening warrants might be divided into two classes—(1) Those issued in furtherance of criminal justice, usually for the purpose of affording some clue to the hiding-place of an offender, or to the mode or place of concealment of property. (2) Those issued for the purpose of discovering the designs of persons known or suspected to be engaged in proceedings dangerous to the State, or deeply involving British interests, from being carried on in the United Kingdom. In the case of both classes of warrants, the mode of proceeding was nearly similar. The first were issued on the application of the law-officers; the principal Secretary of State himself determined when to issue the latter. No record was kept of the grounds on which the second class of warrants were issued. "The letters which have been detained and opened are," according to the Committee,[124] "unless retained by special order, as sometimes happens in criminal cases, closed and re-sealed without affixing any mark to indicate 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 counterbalance the odium of countenancing what was so like a public crime, and which violated public confidence in the Post-Office, or whether the issue of a few warrants annually, in proportion to the 40,000 committals[125] which took place yearly at that time, could by any means be called an efficient instrument of police, are vastly different questions. With regard to the general question of letter-opening, the issue was altogether vague and uncertain. Though the practical end of the inquiry was, no doubt, gained, and warrants may almost be said to have ceased, still the Committees recommended Parliament to decide that the power and prerogative of opening letters, under certain given circumstances, should not be abrogated. They argued that, if the right of the Secretary of State was denied, it would be equivalent to advertising to every criminal conspirator against the public peace, that he might employ the Post-Office with impunity.[126] It was decided, in consequence of this finding, that the law should remain unaltered.

Mr. Duncombe was not satisfied. In the next session he attempted to revive the subject by calling the attention of the House to what he termed the evasive and unsatisfactory character of the report of the Secret Committee, and moving the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject over again; but he met with little success. Sir J. Graham, Sir. R. Peel, Viscount Sandon, Mr. Warburton, Mr. Ward, and Lord John Manners, spoke against his motion, which he then withdrew. Upon this, Lord Howick tried to carry a resolution for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the case of Mr. Duncombe's letters only. Mr. Disraeli seconded the motion, desiring not to have the Government censured, but to see the practice condemned. Mr. Roebuck believed that the country would not be content until the invidious power intrusted to the Secretary of State respecting letter-opening was absolutely abolished. Lord John Russell spoke 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 Government had opened the letters of M. Mazzini, thus frustrating the political movement in Italy. Few members, however, showed any desire to prolong a desultory debate, and thirty-eight only were found willing to affirm Mr. Sheil's proposition. Mr. Wakley, a day or two afterwards, tried to revive the same discussion, but a motion which he made was negatived by three to one. On the 8th of April, 1845, Mr. Duncombe, while intimating his desire to waive personal questions, and disclaiming all party feeling, moved for leave to bring in a Bill "to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the Post-Office." He was at war with the system, not with the Government. Let the Government approach the subject in a fair and not in a party spirit. All the Ministers, however, and the chiefs of the Liberal party, again stoutly resisted any change in the law; and this long controversy was finally set at rest by an adverse decision of 161 to 78.

The English people, it must be added, all along objected less to the power which the Government possessed in the exertion of their discretion, than to the manner in which that power was exercised. Mr. Duncombe's statements during the earlier stages of the discussions, relating to the "secret office"—never denied—could not be forgotten by the public when they intrusted their letters to the custody of the Post-Office. The revelations 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 complainings would neither have been so loud nor yet so justifiable.[129] There was something in the melting apparatus, in the tobacco-pipe, in the forged plaster of paris seals, in the official letter-picker, and in the place where, and manner how, he did his work, utterly disgusting to John Bull, and most unsuitable to the atmosphere of England. The law, it is true, remains unaltered, but it is believed to be virtually a dead letter.

FOOTNOTES:

[116] Hansard, 1844.