Correspondence.
To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.
Sir, —The Canterbury press not having noticed clause 33 of the new Post Office Bill brought before the General Assembly, permit me through your columns to draw public attention to the Government proposal for subjecting the correspondence of every person, in this colony to that inquisitorial process so freely used by Sir James Graham a few years ago—and which created the greatest indignation among the people of England:—
"It shall be lawful for the Governor by a warrant under his hand to direct the Post-Master-General or any Post-Master or other Post Officer to open, detain, or delay any post letter for any purpose in such warrant mentioned, and such Post-Master-General, Post-Master, or other Post Officer, is hereby authorised and required to act in obedience to such warrant."
Admitting for a moment the propriety of conferring upon any one man or body of men a power that can be so easily and so monstrously abused, —and that with probably hardly any chance of the sufferer ever becoming aware of its employment against him, —with what utter disregard to providing any check upon its abuse is this clause framed.
But no comment can be needed upon .such an attempt to invade the sanctity of private correspondence, or to violate the fundamental principle of British law, which repudiates the use of any kind of trap laid by which a man may be made to criminate himself. I think it will be quite sufficient that such a proposal should become known, to call forth its indignant rejection by every person in New Zealand who has a voice to raise against it.
I remain, sir, your obedient servant, NO INQUISITION. [The clause that alarms our correspondent is not likely to be productive of much real evil 'under a responsible Government; where Ministers will, of course, have to give satisfactory account of any advice by which the Governor even in extreme cases might act upon the power thereby granted. Even in the ferment on Sir James Graham's case, alluded to by our correspondent, the explanation given by the Government satisfied the. nation; and a similar power still remains a portion of the British law. Its main object is the interception of treasonable correspondence with a foe; and even then it is more intended for the safety of the state than the conviction of traitors. —Ed. L. T.]
To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.
Sir, —In answer to a document relative to the stone work for the Lyttelton Church, signed by Mr. Clianey and others, will you allow me to say that these' gentlemen are entirely wrong in stating that I never objected>to their estimate of £2 per superficial yard 2 ft. 3 in. thick; as I repeatedly complained of the price and. told Mr. Chancy that I considered 255. about the full value. Perhaps I rather underestimated than otherwise, but it affords me high satisfaction to be able to state that according to the opinion of a most competent judge I did not.
I am, sir, your obedient servant, GEORGE MALLINSON. Christchurch, June 3, 1858.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/LT18580605.2.10
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 583, 5 June 1858, Page 5
Word count
Tapeke kupu
518Correspondence. Lyttelton Times, Volume IX, Issue 583, 5 June 1858, Page 5
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.