The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-22 00:00:00

DUBLIN POST-OFFICE.

Mr. WILKS presented a petition of which he had
given notice, from C. D. Devitt, for 17 years employed in
the General Post-office, Dublin. The petitioner had in
1829 discovered some frauds which were practised by his
superiors in office to the amount of 5,000/., of which he had
immediately given notice to his superiors, and Lords Ross
and O'Neil, the Post-Masters General for Ireland. A pro-
secution was directed—one of the parties absconded to
America, and the other was convicted and sentenced to
seven years' trauportation. Efforts had been made to im-
pute impropriety to the petitioner ; but he bad obtained a
e,rtifirate from the juch4-es who had tried the ease, bearing
testimony to his disinterestedness. Nothwithstanding which
he had been in the year 1835 dismissed without notice.
his wife was the keeper of a receiving-house in Dublin,
from which she also was discharged. She died of a broken
heart in the course of a year, and .the petitioner, after
seventeen years' faithful and honest service, was turned out
on the world with ten children to support. no had now
been struggling nearly four years in order to receive jus-
tice, which had been advocated by all parties, by Lord
Oxmantown, the son of Lord Ross, who was one of the
Postmasters-General at the time ; by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin University ( Mr. Shaw), and by the Hon.
and Learned Member for Kilkenny ( par.
ties advocated his claim In Aug., 1835, the Treasury took
the case into their consideration, and stated, that upon in-
vestigation they found .that the petitioner had been accom-
modated with sums of money according to the practice of
the Irish Post-office, and that he must either have connived
at tie irregularity or was ignorant of his duty ; but that they
would allow him what arrears of pay were due to him at time
time of his dismissal. That was contrary to the testimony
of the superiors in the office of the joint Postmasters-General
of Ireland, and of the Judges who tried the case to which al-
lusion had been made. He had sometimes received advances
of money on account of the current quarter, which was-.the
universal practice in the office. The judges were of
opinion, and successive postmasters were of opinion, that
the petitioner was entitled to great credit, and that• he
had been made a victim for having come forward
and exposed to the country a most nefarious fraud.
Under these circumstances, be was surely entitled
to a pension, and to the receipt of the balance of 56/.
But notwithstanding this minute of the Treasury, he bad
never received it ; he had applied to the Treasury, they
had referred him to the Post-office, and they had referred
him to the Irish Post-office. Under these circumstances,
it was impossible that things could remain in their present
state. In his opinion,it was not only a matter of individual
justice, but ofj ustice to all persons who might be placed in such
a state of circumstances. He would, therefore, now move
that the petition should be brought up and read, and on
Friday next, he should move for the papers necessary to
substantiate the statements in the petition, and for the ap-
pointment of a Select Committee thereon.

The SPEAKER thought the petition was irregular as
money was asked for by it. There was no rule more clear
than that no petition could be received that ap-
plied for money, without the sanction of the House.
It was true, that in the present petition, the word
money was carefully kept out of the paper ; but still the
statements and substance of the petition was to apply for
money. He thought peculiar caution ought to be exer-
cised on receiving the petition. Great laxity had been ex-
ercised on the subject ; but he thought tie House ought
to revise the rule which till latterly had strictly been
adhered to.

Mr. WILKS said the prayer of the petition was for a
public investigation into circumstances that were necessary
for the protection of his character, as the petitioner con-
tended he had been dismissed without any cause.
The SPEAKER said, if the petition was received, it
must be upon the understanding that money should be ex-
cluded.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was then brought up
and read.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con-
ceived that every subject of the realm who felt
that he had been aggrieved by a decision of any
part of his Majesty's Government had a just and legitimate
claim to approach that House, even though the wrong he
had suffered might be of a pecuniary nature ; but he had
no right, with a view of redress from pecuniary wrongs, to
come to the House for a redress of those wrongs in the
shape of a pecuniary grant, though he had a right to complain
of the wrongs he had received. As the Hon. Member
who had presented the petition had stated, that at a future
period he should bring the subject of the petition more
fully before the House, he thought it should be received.
The complaint of the petition was that the petitioner had
been deprived of the superannuation allowance, and unless
the House was prepared to act upon the suggestion of the
Chair, it would be establishing the most inconvenient of all
precedents, because they would be opening the door to all
private applications for money, which, above all things, it
behoved the House to watch with great caution, not only
for the interest of the public, but of the House.
Mr. HUME had thought the petition was open to the
objection which had been stated, but he conceived it might
be allowed to lie on the table ; and whether it should go to
the Committee or not would depend on the case his Hon.
Friend might make out.

Mr. WILKS moved that the petition be printed, and
gave notice that he should, on the 29th of July, bring the
matter under the consideration of the House.

DUTY ON WHISKEY.
Sir RUFANE DONKIN said he had two petitions to
present, upon a subject in which the morals and well-being

of his constituents were deeply concerned. He trusted the
House would bear with him for a moment, while he stated—
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member had better not
enter into details.

Sir RUFA NE DONKIN would occupy the House
but a very few moments—
The SPEAKER—What is the subject of it?
Sir R. DONKIN—It complains of the inequality of
the duties on whiskey, Sir.—(Great laughter.) The Hon.
Member stated that the petitioners prayed the House
would consider the inequality of the duties on Scotch and
English whiskey, and by removing those inequalities put a
stop to the evils they complained of, One of the petitions
was signed by the Mayor, Burgesses, and Aldermen, and
the other was signed by the inhabitants of Berwick-upon-
Tweed.