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