The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-10 00:00:00

the Post-office, and the petitioner prayed that the House
would direct an inquiry to be made into the circumstances
attending his dismissal. The Noble Lord then proceeded
to read the statements in the petition, and concluded by
stating he considered the case had not received the investi-
gation it deserved ; he therefore trusted the House would
institute some further inquiry.
Mr. LABOUCHERE contended that the petitioner
had no right to complain of the manner in which he had
been treated. The Report now laid upon the table of the
House from the Post-office Commission, disclosed a system
which was nothing less than an organized system of public
plunder, demanding of the Government, wherever guilt
was traced home, that they should inflict the severest
punishment they had it in their power to impose,
namely, dismissal from his Majesty's service.—( Hear.)
He would shortly tell the House what was the course pur-
sued by the Government towards the individual now peti-
tioning the House. When the Sub-Commissioners com-
menced their investigation, they called Mr. Johnston, who
had large public stores under his charge. After his first
examination other individuals made statements completely at
variance with them. Mr. Johnston was recalled, with a view
to enable him to reconcile the discrepancies in his accounts.
Mr. Johnson had begun by refusing to give the Com-
missioners any informatipn on these points, and they,
therefore, considered it their duty to report these
circumstances to the Commissioners in London, and
the result of that was that Mr Johnson was sus-
pended. The Sub-Commissioners found what they con-
sidered so strong a case of malversation on the part
of Mr. Johnson and the Storekeeper-General, that they
felt bound to suspend them for the purpose of call-
ing them before them to explain the course they had pursued.
Mr. Johnstone was not enabled to explain his case suf-
ficiently, and the result was, that he was dismissed from
the public service. So careful were the Post Office upon
the subject, and so anxious to do that which was right, that
they directed two persons to look into the whole matter,
and see whether it was possible that this thing could be
the result of negligence, or whether it had not arisen
from fraud ; and the conclusion come to was that what
had taken place was the result of fraud. As at present ad-,
vised, he did not see any reason why a different decision
should be come to, and he could not, therefore, see any
reason for the inquiry.
Lord SANDON thought the case of the petitioner was
well worthy of the consideration of the House, and he
hoped, therefore, they would give it every attention.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Report had not been
sent to the officer alluded to, because the Commissioners
were dissatisfied with the former one. He could not hold
out any hopes to his Noble Friend that the Government
would again open the case for a new enquiry.
Lord SANDON understood that this gentleman
had been dismissed on the report of an officer who had
himself received his discharge in a few days for gross negli-
gence. He hoped, therefore—(Loud cries of " Order," and
" Spoke, spoke.")
Mr. AGLIONBY presented a petition, signed by 90
Welshmen inhabiting London, complaining that the clause
prohibiting the appointment of all persons as clergymen
and bishops in the Principality had been struck out of
the Ecclesiastical Bill. He (Mr. Aglionby) of course could
not yet, in a Parliamentary way, know any thing of the
matter ; but if the clause for such a purpose which
was inserted after a division in that House were actually
struck out, he hoped there was firmness in the House to
restore it. The Hon. Member had also a petition to pre-
sent from a person named Wheatley, of Cumberland,
praying the House to interfere and oblige the Go-
vernment to use all their influence to procure the
release of Dr. Beaumont, a British subject, who was
doomed to perpetual imprisonment in France by an ex-
post facto law.
Dr. BOWRING had intended to have brought up the
case of Dr. Beaumont before the House, but had been pre-
vented by the lateness of the period.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He did judge of the laws as applicable to French
subjects, but he thought it was not for the honour of this
country to remain quiet under such a code. There was not
one single fragment of evidence against Beaumont before
the Court of Peers—his name was not even men-
tioned, yet he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment.
This tribunal was a most atrocious one, where the Judges
were political opponents and partisans, and by which, with-
out any defence, and without any evidence being alleged
against him, he and a mass of other individuals were con-
demned to perpetual imprisonment. This was a case in
which it became that House, on some future occasion, to
interfere to obtain the production of the documents con-
nected with the case. He trusted, however, that before
this could be accomplished the French Government would
put an end to the proceedings against this unfortunate in-
dividual, which had inflicted so strong a wound on English
feeling.
Sir R. INGLIS would ask whether anything had hap-
pened to a British subject which would not have happened
to a French subject under similar circumstances ?
Mr. HUME said that every British subject who went to
France went there to live under the existing laws, and
ought not to be subjected to any new laws, or brought
before a tribunal more monstrous than bad ever appeared
in any country. It was the duty of the British Govern-
ment to protect its subjects in France, and to see that the
liberties of British subjects were not unduly interfered with.
He considered the present case one of gross oppression, and
he trusted that it would be soon redressed.

Mr. AGLIONBY would not then argue this question
as it would shortly come before the House, and he would
then take an opportunity of showing that this was a case
for the interference of this country.

Mr. `VALLEY would ask whether there had been
any communication between the Governments of France
and England on the subject ?
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the Hon. Member
would give notice of his question.
Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice that he would bring
the subject before the House to-morrow.

MARINE INSURANCES.

Mr. ROBINSON gave notice that he should, early in
the next Session of Parliament, submit a motion to the
House for the reduction of the duty on Marine In-
surances.