THE RIGHT TO OPEN POST LETTERS.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3547, 21 November 1882, Page 4

THE RIGHT TO OPEN POST LETTERS.

At tbe Clerkenwell Police-court, a welldressed Frenchman, who spoke very good English, and said lie resided in the neighborhood of Cloudlesley-square, Islington, applied to Mr Barstow, under the following circumstances:—He stated that he had resided on and off in England for some years, and when he first came to this country he was surprised to find that his post letters had been tampered with, but as political feeling was then running high he was of opinion that his correspondence might have been searched oyer by the French authorities, and he took no further notice of the matter. Lately, however, where he lodged, he had ascertained that a party in the house opened his letters. He had spoken about it, but no notice was taken, and he had spoken to the postman on the subject, but he said he had no authority in the matter. It was a source of much annoyance that his private and confidential matters should be bandied about by a person who had no right to know anything about them, and more especially when they were contained in a letter that was enclosed in a sealed envelope. Shrugging his shoulders, and lifting his hands, the applicant said he did not much like it—he did not like it at all — and he wished to know if the magistrate would not help him to put a stop to such a wicked practice. Mr Barstow said it was yery wrong of the party complained of to open the applicant's letters, but as far as he was aware he was powerless in the matter, and had not tho least power to act. He could only suggest that, as the applicant was a lodger, and was dissatisfied with the landlord or the other lodgers, he should give notice and go to some other apartments. The applicant said he did not wish to do that. He had been informed by a newspaper correspondent that he knew that it was a crime to open letters that were sent through the post by any person to whom they were not addressed, therefore he wished process to issue, so that the man who ' desecrated ' Lis letters might be punished ' according to law.' It was a bad crime to do as that man had done. Mr Barstow re- | marked that though it was morally wrong for any other person to open one's priyate correspondence, whether it was conveyed through post or otherwise, yet ifc was not such a 'crime' as he had the power to punish. He knew of no statute that gave authority to punish in such a case. The Applicant—' But mine arc letters that are foreign. Does that not make a great difference ? I want the fellow punished, for he is a low blackguard to open my letters, and then tell all persons what they contain. Mr Barstow said no doubt ifc was a blackguardly thing to open a stranger's letters, but he. had no power to punish in such a case, and so the matter must end, bufc he should advise tho applicant to seek fresh quarters where the parties would not be so rude as to open bis letters. Tho applicant shrugged his shouldors, and said he would think the matter over, and perhaps go to his consul. A domestic servant, who said she was engaged afc a large hotel near Islington, and who was in the habit of placing her little savings in the Post Office Savings Bank, complained that when the PostmasterGeneral sent an acknowledgment of the same, her fellow-servants opened the letter to see what she had put away. She did not like ifc, and she wanted fco know if gomething could not be done to put a stop to ifc. Mr Barstow said he could do nothing, but the applicant could write fco the PostmasterGeneral if she thought fit to do so. The applicant said she would, and left the court.