The Sun.
London, England, 1833-08-19 00:00:00

was removed from Peckham Rye to Walworth, and there
continued to do duty as a policeman, and the petitioner
prayed the House to take the-case into its corisideratinn;
The Hon. Member then presented a petition from a person,
lately an inspector of police, complaining df the conduct of
the Commissioners in dismissing him from office, and
without having been guilty of any miconduct.
Lord MORPETH stated, in reference to the petition
presented by the Hon. Member from Mr. Forster, formerly
connected with the press in the town of Leeds, that the
action brought against him for libel was instituted by a
particular individual, and not, as was insinuated, at the
instigation, nor supported at the expense, of the manufac-
turing body generally. He wished to state this fact, although
the petition was more particularly directed against a dis-
cretion which it seemed the judge possessed to prevent a
trial being proceeded with by advising the withdrawal of
a juror. As to the petition from Hobson, be begged
leave to state that since the conversation which had this
morning taken place, he had had an opportunity of seeing
a letter from a magistrate, who was well known in the
country for integrity, which stated that Hobson declared
his ability to pay the penalty, and that some of his friends
had actually offered to pay down the amount for him,
but he seemed to prefer the glory of being immured in
what be considered the good cause.—(Hear.)
Mr. HARDY read a letter from Mr. Heyward, a Ma-
gistrate of the county, to the same effect. He had visited
the prisoner, and found him in the best room with news-
papers allowed him ; and his friends were also admitted
more frequently than the rules of the prison permitted.
He had recommended him to pay the fine; but he wished
to he talked about and to be made a public character ;
and be was very angry because he was sent to prison for
misconduct, and not for glory.—(Laughter.)
Colonel EVANS vindicated the character of the
petitioner.
On the reading of the petiting on certain persons re-
siding in Oldham, praying for a further division of prize-
money,
Colonel WILLIAMS rose. to deprecate the practice of
keeping prize-money so long from those who were entitled
to and richly deserved it.
Mr. HARDY trusted that the practice among the
agents of not paying the odd pence was done away with.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT felt quite satisfied that the
proper officer under Government would look into and re•
move the hardship.
Colonel EVANS, in reference to the Deccan prize-
money, deprecated the allowance on the part of Govern-
ment of so much litigation on the subject. It led to the
greatest dissatisfaction, when men were thirty or forty
years before they got that which was their due, and, in
many cases, death deprived them of the benefit of it
altogether. He trusted that something would be done on
the subject in the next session.
Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Mr. Oxenham,
a solicitor of Taunton, complaining that a parcel of deeds
which he sent by the mail had been opened and detained
because there were two letters inside. The Hon. Gentle-
man said the letters related to the deeds and other business
between him and his agent. He had received a letter
from the Solicitor to the Post-office, stating that he had
incurred the two penalties. Soon after he received
another letter, stating that the Postmaster General would
compromise the matter by exacting only one of the pe-
nalties. That was the manner in which the case stood at
present. The Honourable Member read an opinion got
from Mr. Follet, the barrister, stating that such letters
might he sent if they only related to the business
of the parties—that deeds and papers were goods
within the meaning of the Act, and that an acti, n
would lie against the postmaster for the detention. He
gave notice, that early next Session he would introduce a
declaratory Bill to amend the sth Geo. IV. chap. 20.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no ne-
cessity for such a thing.
Mr. TOOKE was glad to bear that; but he thought
it was necessary, because the solicitor of the Post-office
did not seem to read it in the same way as the Learned
Gen • lem an.

Mr. STANLEY said this c tse was one certainly of gr, at
importance, and therefore he beeeed to mike an explana-
tion which had been furnished him by his Noble Friend,
the Pestmaster-General. T 1.6 Post Office having the mono-
poly of c irrying all letters, it being public policy that it
.beald have that monopoly, and the revenge deriving•consi-
deratle amount of revenue, perhaps with less inconve .!.nee
to the Auhj,.ct than by any of er mole. it must be eviriFnt
that that monopoly should be strictly piot,cted, and that
rn rcantile. commercial, and other houses, who transmit
a great number of letters, shou'd not have facilities 'or
evading the payment of letters by sending tern by parcels
and by coach, while all other persons were obliged to
pay. Perhaps the House was not aware of the extent
to which the system hail been carried. It cm,e
to the knowledge of the Post Master that many of the
principal coach-office bigs were made up every day tor
th. purpose of forwarding by coach paper parcels fu of
letters. Several of these parcels had been stopped
and sent to the Post Master. One parcel was found
to contain 42 letters and another as many as 200. It was
ascertained that a hag had been regularly made up at the
Gloucester and Bristol mail offiees, on the Slat May, the
day when the petitioner's letters were found ; that
hag 'contained sixty letters, and on the following
day forty two. They were in parcels of two, five, or
six letters. 'here was no excuse that there was ,tny
additional speed or additional convenience by that system,
because the letters were sent by the usual mail, only that
every day the Post Office was defrauded.—(llear, hear )
In consequence of this seizure of letters, the Postmaster
General was threatened with legal proceedings, to which
the 1 otter replied he was anxious to meet the parties in
order that the law might b- known and established.
However, no person thought proper to try the question;
and the Postmaster-General thought, in order
to bring the question to an issue, to select I case for pro-
secution, and have the point decided at law—not with any
vindictive feelinr, or a desire to recover penalties, but only
to let the public know that such fraud could not
be p.rmitted to go on with impunity. On the
31st of May two letters were put into a parcel with some
deeds by Mr. Oxenbam, the petitioner, addressed to his
correspondent in London, but the Hon. Member (Mr.
Tooke) was wrong in stating that both those letters referred
to the deeds ; only ens referred to the deeds, and the other
to some other business. The exception in the Act of Par
liament related to letters referring to and accompanying
goods sent by a common carrier, and not to deeds;
but certainly it would he acting harshly if deeds
were not considered, in this respect, in the light
of goods. Mr. 'Dunham c tiled at the P,
office and was given his deeds, but copies were taken of
the letters. He afterwards wrote a letter to the Postmaster.
General, in which he said be was like many other country
attornies, ignorant of the state of the law—a fact that he
(Mr. Stanley) considered rot a little extraordinary. He
no where stated that he was ignorant of the law, and
he threw himself on the mercy of the Postmaster-General.
If, as the Hon. Member had stated, it was the opinion of
the legal profession that other than letters concerning the
deeds with which they were sent might be sent in such par-
cels then he (Mr. S.) must confess that those legal gentlemen
betrayed unjustifiable ignorance of the law. He coul I
not see that the Post-office department could do fains
than select this case of Mr. Oxenhain upon which to try
the merits of the question ; but the House must bear in
mind that this case was now in course of trial.

Mr. TOOKE hoped that no vindictive prosecution
would be carried on against this Gentleman.
Mr. HUME said the House had been for six or seven
years promised by the Government to have produced a
consolidation of the Post Office laws, which were so vague
and contradictory as to puzzle the most able lawyers.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he concurred in
the opinion which had been given by his Learned Friend
Mr. Follett, that letters referring to the deeds with which
they were sent might be so sent without incurring any
penalty, but in this owe of Mr. Oxenham there was one
letter sent referring to the deeds and other business, and
another which had no reference to the deeds whatever.

Mr. HUME said he was still of opinion that he could
send letters by coach or by any friend.
Mr. STANLEY—If the Hon. Member thinks so, he
had better give notice of his intention to the Post office,
and he might then have the pleasure of having the law
decided in bi 4 own person.

Mr HARDY was against the Post-office having power
to open letters, but still the accomm ,dation which the
Post-office gave, ought to be considered as the last that
could be afforded, under the circumstinces of the country.
Any one had the power to send letters to any part of the
country by a friend.
Mr. HUllE—He cinnot.
Mr. HARDY -aid the Act of Parliament expressly
provided oat if the individual by whom the letters were
sent would deliver them to the person with his own hand
to whom they were directed, that such letters sbrtild be
exempt from postage. Also any letter that was sent by
a carrier with goods, if it rehted only to the goods that
were sent, Was exempt.
Mr. 0 REILLY trusted that Parliament would never
sanction the breakitw open of letters, which in his opinion
amounted to an infrineement of private right..
Sir E. KNATCHBULL presented a petition from a
Dean Julio Parker, relative to the proceedings for the re-
covery of tithes, institwed in consequence of Lord Ten.
terden's Act, and complaining of the operation of the Bill
that was introduced the other night by an Hon. Member
(Mr. Blamire).