THE POST-OFFICE AND LETTER-OPENING.
It will be fresh in the memory of many readers, that the year 1844
revealed to the public certain usages of the Government, and a branch of
post-office business--previously kept carefully 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. W. J. Linton, M. Mazzini, and two other persons
residing at 47, Devonshire Street, Queen's Square, complaining that
their letters were regularly detained and opened at the Post-Office. The
petitioners declared that they "considered such a practice, introducing
the spy-system of foreign states, as repugnant to every principle of the
British constitution, and subversive of that public confidence which was
so essential to a commercial country." The petitioners prayed for an
inquiry, and Mr. Duncombe supported their prayer. Sir James Graham, then
Home Secretary, got up in the House and stated that, as regarded three
of the petitioners, their letters had not been detained; as for the case
of M. Mazzini, a warrant had been obtained from the Home-Office to stop
and open the correspondence of that person. He had the power by law and
he had exercised it. "The authority," said Sir James, "was vested in the
responsible Ministers of the Crown, and was intrusted to them for the
public safety; and while Parliament placed its confidence in the
individual exercising such a power, it was not for the public good to
pry or inquire into the particular causes which called for the exercise
thereof."[116] He hoped that the House 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 House of Lords, for a return of all the
warrants which had been issued for the detention of letters during a
certain period, animadverting especially upon the alleged practice of
general warrants to intercept all letters addressed to a certain person
instead of there being issued a separate warrant in the case of each
letter.[117] This mode of proceeding, as he truly said, if acted upon,
was a flagrant violation of the words of the statute. Lord Campbell
expressed the same views. Lord Brougham observed that the first statute
conferring this power had been framed by Lord Somers. It had been
continued ever since by various Acts, and had been exercised by Sir
Robert Walpole, Lord Grenville, and Mr. Fox, as well as under the
administrations of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne. If Lord Campbell's
construction of the Act were correct, the sooner they had a new one the
better. Lord Denman was for putting an end to the power altogether. The
return was granted, the Duke of Wellington approving the Home
Secretary's conduct notwithstanding.
On the 24th of June, 1844, Mr. Duncombe again called the attention of
the House of Commons to the subject, by presenting a petition from Mr.
Charles Stolzman, a Polish refugee, complaining that his letters had
been detained and opened. Mr. Duncombe contended that the Act of 1837
never meant to confer an authority upon a Minister of the Crown to
search out the secrets of exiles resident in this country at the
instance of foreign Governments, but was only designed to meet the case
of domestic treason. "Mr. Stolzman was a friend of M. Mazzini," said Mr.
Duncombe, "and this was why his letters had been tampered with." After
describing the way in which letters were opened, he concluded a most
powerful speech by again moving for a committee of inquiry. He did not
want to know Government secrets; he doubted if they were worth knowing;
but he wanted inquiry into the practice of the Department, which he
contended was unconstitutional and contrary to law. Sir James Graham,
without entering into any further explanation, except saying that the
law had not been violated, and that if it had, the honourable member
might prove it before a legal tribunal, objected strongly, and in almost
a defiant manner, to any committee. Mr. Macaulay, Lord Howick, Mr.
Sheil, and Lord John Russell warmly supported the motion for an inquiry.
Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Monckton Milnes opposed it, when
it was rejected by a majority of forty-four. What party speeches failed
in doing, the clamour and popular tumult outside at length accomplished.
Popular ridicule settled upon the subject; pencil and pen set to work
upon it with a will. Newspapers were unusually, and sometimes
unreasonably, free in their comments, and all kinds of stories about the
Post-Office went the round of the press. Sir James Graham had to bear
the brunt of the whole business; whereas the entire Cabinet, but
especially Lord Aberdeen, the Foreign Secretary, ought equally to have
shared the opprobrium. As it was, the bearing of the Home Secretary in
the House of Commons was singularly unwise and unadroit. The subject had
now come to be regarded as of too great 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. Lord Sandon
(chairman), Mr. T. Baring, Sir W. Heathcote, and Mr. H. Drummond. "To
this committee," said Sir James, "I gladly submit my personal honour and
my official conduct, and I make my submission without fear." The
committee was appointed after Mr. Wilson Patten's name had been
substituted for Mr. Drummond's, on account of the latter being a lawyer;
and after an unsuccessful attempt to add Mr. Duncombe's name, which was
rejected by 128 to 52. Its object was "to inquire into the state of the
law with respect to the detaining of letters in the General Post-Office,
and to the mode in which that power had been exercised, and that the
Committee should have power to send for persons, papers, and records,
and to report the result of their inquiry to the House." A Committee of
the House of Lords was appointed at the same time. Sir James Graham's
examination lasted four days, when he fulfilled his pledge to make a
full and unreserved disclosure of all he knew. Almost all the members of
that and former Governments were examined. Lord John Russell confessed
to having done the same as Sir James Graham when he held the seals of
the Home-Office, though he had not used the power so frequently. He also
stated that he supported Mr. Duncombe in his previous motions for
inquiry, because he thought it necessary that the public should have the
information asked for. Lord Normanby had used the power in Ireland for
detecting "low ribbonism, which could not be _ferretted out_ by other
means." Lord Tankerville testified to the existence of a warrant signed
by Mr. Fox in 1782, ordering the detention and opening of all letters
addressed to foreign ministers; another, ordering that all the letters
addressed to Lord George Gordon should be opened. Witnesses were also
brought from the Post-Office. Mr. Duncombe, on being asked for a list
of witnesses to prove his allegations, refused to hand in their names
unless he were allowed to be present during the examination. This the
Committee had no power to grant, and consequently he declined to
proceed. Mr. Duncombe appealed to the House, but the decision of the
Committee was confirmed.
No inconsiderable part of the Committee's time was taken up in the
production and examination of records, acts, and precedents bearing on
the subject. The officers of the State Paper Office and other high
Government functionaries produced records and State papers of great
importance, from which we learn many interesting particulars of early
postal history. At some risk of being charged with anachronism, we have
thought it desirable to introduce these details in the order of the
_subject_ under treatment.
James I. in establishing a foreign post, was more anxious that
Government secrets should not be disclosed to foreign countries, "which
cannot be prevented if a promiscuous use of transmitting foreign letters
and packets should be suffered," than that the post should be of use to
traders and merchants. There was a motive for the jealous monopoly of
postal communications; and if the proclamation from which the above is
taken (Rymer's Foedera) 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 and out of the land, if every man
may convey letters as he chooseth." Sir John Coke, the writer of the
above, would seem to have got rid of the difficulty in a thorough
manner, if we may believe an English letter-writer addressing a friend
in Scotland, when he wrote, "I hear the posts are waylaid, and all
letters taken from them and brought to Secretary Coke."[118]
During the Commonwealth, of course, letter-opening was to be expected.
The very reason which Cromwell gave for establishing the posts was, that
they would be "the best means of discovering and preventing many wicked
designs against the Commonwealth, 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
denied. At the Restoration, a distinct clause in the "Post-Office
Charter" provided that "no one, except under the immediate warrant of
one of our principal Secretaries of State, shall presume to open any
letters or pacquets not directed unto themselves."
Under the improved Act of Queen Anne, 1711, it is again stated that "no
person or persons shall presume to open, detain, or delay any letter or
letters, after the same is or shall 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
of the principal Secretaries of State for _every such opening_,
detaining, or delaying." This Act was continued under all the Georges,
and again agreed to in 1837, under 1 Vict. c. 32.
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 45,000_l._ 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), 1,000_l._; the
second decipherer, 800_l._; the third, 500_l._; four clerks, 1,600_l._;
doorkeeper, 50_l._; incidental charges, but principally for seals,
100_l._ 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.
[117] _Ibid._
[118] Lang's _Historical Summary of the Post-Office in Scotland_.
Postmaster-General's _Third Report_.
[119] Report of Secret Committee, 1844, p. 9.
[120] _Lords' Journal_, xxii. pp. 183-6.
[121] _Commons' Journal_, vol. xxii. p. 462.
[122] The place was not only lucrative, but in the path of promotion. We
find that, for the proper performance of these very unclerical duties,
the Rev. Dr. was first rewarded with the Deanery of Lincoln and
afterwards with the Bishopric of St. David's.
[123] Froude.
[124] Report of Secret Committee, 1844, pp. 14-17.
[125] Report of the Secret Committee, 1844, pp. 14-17.
[126] _Ibid._ Commons' Committee.
[127] Hansard, 1844-5.
[128] _Ibid._
[129] Among many expressions of opinion to which the inquiry on the
subject gave rise, we find the following characteristic effusion from
Thomas Carlyle: "It is a question vital to us that sealed letters in an
English post-office be, as we all fancied they were, respected as things
sacred; that 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, some
double-dyed high treason, or imminent national wreck not avoidable
otherwise, then let us open letters; not till then. To all Austrian
Kaisers and such like, in their time of trouble, let us answer, as our
fathers from of old have answered--Not by such means is help here for
you."