, in rising to present a Petition, availed himself of the opportunity to recall to the attention of the House the extraordinary circumstances which had occurred the day before, as to the delivery of letters beyond the number which Members were entitled to receive. It would be recollected he had stated his having received from Sir Francis Freeling a letter, stating distinctly, that it was contrary to law to deliver more than fifteen letters in one day, postage free, to any Member, and that there was no discretionary power vested in the Post-office authorities; this statement, it was attempted to insinuate, must have arisen out of some mistake, and could not be attributable to any intentional act of Sir Francis Freeling; but for this insinuation, and the levity with which the hon. member for Northampton seemed to treat the gross misconduct of the Post-office, he should not have thought of troubling the House with any such personal matter; but feeling it incumbent on him to remove every doubt as to the existence of the letter referred to, he had Seen it to be his duty to have it brought from amongst his papers, some of which had already been sent so far on their way to Scotland. Here was the original covered with mud and in tatters, from the effects of shipwreck last year; he would read it to the House. The hon. Member read as follows:—

(Copy.)

General Post-office, 16th April, 1833.

Sir,—I considered it due to your application of the 28th ult. to submit the matter to his Grace the Postmaster-general, who has commanded me to inform you that, according to the legal construction of die Act of Parliament, a Member is not entitled to receive, on any one day, more than the limited number of letters.

The law makes no allowance for the intervention of Sunday; and I regret, therefore, that this Department has no power to dispense with the postage charged upon the enclosed letters.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient humble servant,

(Signed) F. FREELING, Secretary.

Robert Wallace, Esq., M.P.,

29, Spring Gardens.

The House would see that the late Postmaster-general was implicated in this transaction as well as Sir Francis Freeling, and that both were equally to blame in regard to the transaction. Those Members who were not present the other day, would be astonished to hear that no less than three Members had avowed in their places their receiving, free of postage, as occasions occurred, considerably more than their privileged number, and this, too, by an arrangement with the writer of the letter just read, viz. Sir Francis Freeling. The hon. member for the University of Dublin had stated in his place his having received about fifteen letters above privilege, and free of postage, on Monday last, under the arrangement come to with Sir Francis Freeling, whilst that impartial and immaculate officer charged him (Mr. Wallace) for every letter above fifteen delivered to him since he had been in Parliament. Here was the exercise of uncontrolled power with a vengeance. The solicitor of the Scotch Post-office had complained of what he had said on a hoe occasion, when he, in his place in that House, at once admitted his regret for having said any thing which could offend or injure any one's private feelings or professional business. He understood the Post-office Solicitor to be a public servant employed to use the public money to defend the public from Post-office frauds, and he contended, this was a Post-office fraud committed either against him or against the revenue, by allowing one party to escape postage and to charge another with it; he, therefore, submitted that his Majesty's Government were bound to interfere and instruct the Solicitor to prosecute the late Postmaster General, and the Secretary to the Post-office for the gross partiality and flagrant injustice which had been committed against him in this matter. He had frequently complained of the unconstitutional powers delegated by patent to Postmasters General; and he would take leave of the subject he had now brought forward. One word on another subject—he had in his hand a letter from Liverpool, stating that the Post-office steamers were employed as common tug-boats, graced with the King's pennant, in honour of their competing with die mercantile capital and industry of that place. Many hon. Members might be ignorant of the injury and waste in tear and wear by using light steam vessels for tugging heavy loaded merchantmen. Many Members might also be ignorant of this being contrary to every principle on which King's ships had hitherto acted; and they might be no less ignorant of there being such a place as Holyhead, for the profitable repair of the injuries sustained by Post-office steam packets. He would here close the subject for the present, and leave the Post-office authorities on the exposure he had made.

took that opportunity of putting a question relative to what was reported to have been said by the noble Lord (Althorp) in that House during his absence last night relative to the prosecution by the Sussex Magistrates of the editor of the Brighton Guardian. He had given notice of a Motion upon the subject, but although he felt strongly upon the matter; he had no wish to introduce its discussion, provided Government had no objection to lay before the House the number of cases in which the same interference as to the payment of costs had taken place.

said, that all communications which in such cases passed between the Magistrates of the country and the Home-office were usually considered strictly confidential. It had been stated last night, that the expenses of the prosecution in question had been defrayed by Government; and it was not a singular case, the same thing having taken place on several occasions before of great public importance, although not undertaken by the law officers of the Crown.

wished to know whether there would be any objection to lay on the table a return of the different sums of money which had been so applied?

said, there would be no objection to such a return as far as regarded the present prosecution.

brought up a clause for the purpose of giving effect to the benevolent intentions of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) towards the lower classes of the community, by redu- cing the duty on congou and twankay tea from 2s. 2d. to 2s. per lb. The hon. Gentleman contended that the result of the classification adopted by the noble Lord, instead of reducing the duty on tea to the lower class of consumers, had materially enhanced it, and that the inferior quality of tea sold for more money than the higher quality, because the duties were disproportionately placed. It was not his intention to go into the very extensive subject of' the tea-duties, because the report of the Committee which had been investigating that subject had not yet been laid upon the Table; but unless the noble Lord reconsidered the matter, and introduced early next Session some proper enactment with regard to it, the continuance of the present system would produce incalculable evils.

said, it would be for the House to consider whether, under the present circumstances of the case, tea was one of those articles on which a reduction of duty should take place in preference to others where more substantial relief could be afforded. The hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the duty on two classes of tea from 2s. 2d. to 2s. per lb., and the question was, whether it was now expedient to sacrifice the revenue of the country pro tanto. They ought to ascertain what, under a free trade with India, would be the price of tea to the consumer, which could not yet be done, before any proposition was entertained to lower the duties. He sincerely believed, that the breaking up of the monopoly of the East India Company would materially reduce the price of tea; and if so, the consumer would receive adequate relief without the remission of any part of the duty. With these views, in the present state of the Session and of the country, after the regular financial statement had been made, and not having, as the House was aware, a very ample surplus revenue in his hands, he could not consent to reduce the duty on tea, or on any other article, and therefore he must oppose the Clause.

brought up a Clause to authorize the East-India Company to receive, warehouse, and manage East-India goods, the property of other persons, until the complete close of their commercial character.

objected to the word "manage" contained the clause, because he feared it would vest a power in the Company most detrimental to the trade, and enable them to make sales as they had heretofore done. Some definite assurance ought to be had that such an interpretation would not be put on the clause. He complained, that due notice had not been given of the intention of Government to bring forward this proviso: he believed it was introduced in opposition to the Court of Directors, who had in the strongest terms deprecated their being any longer mixed up with the commercial concerns of London. The only object he could see in it, was to render the East-India Company warehousemen to the profit of the Crown, which he sincerely hoped they never would become.

could not consent to the omission of the word to which exception had been taken, for he contended, that its retention was necessary to the object which Ministers had in view. He confessed it filled his mind with astonishment to hear it said, that the trade did not wish for the present clause: some of the dock companies might not desire it, but he was sure that the trade desired it most earnestly. As evidence of the fact, that so far from being considered prejudicial by the trade, it was much wished for by them, he would just mention, that a memorial had been forwarded to him, signed by no fewer than seventy persons, in support of the plan which the present clause was intended to carry into effect. The deputation which he received on the subject assured him, that if a clause of that nature were proposed by Government, and adopted by Parliament, it would give satisfaction, and be productive of the best effects upon trade. In the last year a clause was introduced to enable the East-India Company to receive in their warehouses, to manage, and to sell the property of private individuals till their assets could be wound up. It had been suggested to continue this system by permitting the warehouses of the Company to remain as dépôts for bonded goods, allowing that privilege to attach to the premises into whatever hands they might pass by sale or otherwise. It was urged by the memorialists, of whom he had just been speaking, that it would be an object of great importance to the trade to enjoy the temporary use of those buildings, for amongst many of them there existed a strong prejudice against waterside houses; and even supposing that prejudice ill-founded, he did not apprehend that evil could ensue from yielding to it. On the other band, should it prove well founded, the Government that refused to listen to the representations of the trade would incur the responsibility of placing a large amount of property in considerable danger. By adopting the course which he recommended, the advisers of the Crown and the Parliament would shift the responsibility from themselves.

approved of the clause, declared it in his opinion to be of great consequence to the trade, and affirmed that many Members of the commercial body felt exceedingly thankful to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for having proposed the clause.

desired to know why his Majesty's Government did not at once sell those warehouses; they were anything but profitable to the Government, and he must be allowed to add, that individual owners of warehouses could not compete with the Executive of the country in a speculation of that nature, the more especially when those by whom it was carried on were content to lose. Upon the whole, therefore, it was both unfair and unwise in the Crown to have had anything to do with those warehouses.

stated, that he meant to move Amendments to several parts of the Bill, the object of which was to enable Magistrates to permit the keeping open beer-houses at any hours they might think expedient, not earlier than four o'clock in the morning, nor later than eleven at night. This he did on the grounds stated by him when the Bill was last before the House. He also moved several verbal Amendments.

approved of the Amendments which the noble Lord intended to propose, and thought that they would give satisfaction to the country.

would oppose the Amendment as unjust and iniquitous. It ought not to have been brought forward without notice.

supported the Amendment. It quite met his views, and would prevent him from proposing certain clauses which he thought ought to be added to the Bill.

said, that the Amendment was another attempt to make the condition of the poor one of increased hardship. Why make this a question of money instead of character? Was it not sufficient to have a certificate of honesty in favour of the man who wished to sell beer, but you must also invest him with the character of "respectability?" Did "the Reformed House" mean to declare that the power to pay a certain amount of rent was the test of respectability? He would advise them rather to believe in the existence of virtue in the midst of poverty; if they did not, they would teach a terrible lesson to the people. He knew men whom money could not purchase, who lived in 30s. houses.

supported the Amendment, which he thought would furnish a test of character.

opposed the Amendment. The hon. Member for Lancashire had not treated the House courteously in proposing it without notice.

strongly condemned the Amendment, and called upon the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer to come forward and declare his opinion with respect to it.

said, he thought some test was necessary, and would vote for the Amendment, if pressed to a division.

opposed the Amendment as unnecessary, as against the principle of the Bill and as effecting a change in it of which no fair notice bad been given.

would allow the clause to be altered so as to let it be the value and not the rating of the house. He would also consent to its not coming into operation till April, 1836. The clause would then stand thus:—"That from and after the 5th of April, 1836, no license should be granted for the sale of beer, ale, cider, or perry to the occupant of any house in London or Westminster, or within the bills of mortality, or in certain cities, towns, or boroughs, unless such house were of the value of 10l."

hoped that one of the Amendments made by their Lordships would not be agreed to. The House of Commons, in passing this Bill, inserted a clause, enacting that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court. In the House of Lords that clause had been struck out, upon a statement that the present state of the law was, that the Coroner's Court was an open Court. Great doubts had been entertained upon that point; and in a very celebrated law treatise it had been laid down, that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court. The Attorney and Solicitor General, however, had stated in that House, that the Coroner's Court was an open Court. He should, therefore, move, "that this House disagree from the Lords' Amendment on this subject."

said, that when he first brought in this Bill he had divided the House against the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport, which declared these Courts to be open Courts. He had subsequently made inquiries how the Coroners in different parts of the kingdom acted upon this point. He found that they almost universally considered their Court as an open Court. He, therefore, began to consider the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport right and fair; and on bringing in the Bill in the present Session, he had introduced a clause declaring the Coroner's Court an open Court. The Bill had gone up to the Lords with that clause inserted in it; considerable debate had taken place thereon; and it was then stated by Lord Chief Justice Denman—himself the principal Coroner of England—and also by the Lord Chancellor, that there could be no doubt but it was an open Court. The former Attorney General had also given an opinion in accordance with that of those high legal authorities. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had also maintained the same opinion with great force and at great length. A doubt on the subject had arisen in consequence of an opinion given by Lord Chief Justice Tenterden on the Oldham case. The House of Lords was aware of that opinion; and it considered the opinion of Lord Tenterden as worth more than those which had recently been stated to it. Now, every Coroner who had been examined by the House of Commons' Committee had stated, that he considered his Court an open one; but that he held himself at liberty to dismiss any obnoxious person. The clause was, therefore, struck out by the Lords. He hoped, therefore, that after the investigation which had taken place, the House would agree to the Bill as it now stood.

thought it would have been better to make this a declaratory, instead of an enacting clause. It would, no doubt, have been desirable, that the Lords should have retained the clause either as a declaratory or an enacting clause in the Bill; but, under the circumstances, as the House could not of course restore it, they had no other remedy than to ask for a conference with the Lords, and endeavour to induce them to withdraw their amendment, which he hoped they would consent to do. If they did not, the Bill must be lost. He could mention the name of Mr. Farren as a Coroner, who insisted upon his right of admitting or excluding the public according to his discretion.

said, that Mr. Farren, the Coroner, of Rochdale, had for many years exercised the power of excluding the public from his Court. The editor of one of the Manchester newspapers had determined to try the right. He was turned out of the Court, and he brought the question before the King's Bench. It was tried, he believed, before Lord Tenterden; and the Judge ruled, that the Coroner's Court was not an open Court. It was of the utmost importance, therefore, that the point should be settled. He could mention another circumstance of great importance connected with the jurisdiction of Coroner. Mr. Farren, whom he had already alluded to, and another Coroner in Lancashire, were in the habit of sending substitutes to act for them instead of holding inquests themselves. He knew a Coroner in the great town of Manchester to have sent his brother (a publican, the hon. Gentleman was understood to say) to hold an inquest in his place. Thus very inferior persons might be employed to discharge those important functions. Another very striking case would prove the necessity of having the Coroner's Court open. A child was burnt to death at Bury in the course of the spring. The Coroner being sent for, held an inquest, and a verdict of accidental death was returned. The neighbours, however, had some suspicions: an inquiry was set on foot, the body was disinterred, and it was found that the father had destroyed his own child by setting fire in some manner to the clothes in the cradle. From that day to this he absconded. These circumstances showed how important it was, that the Coroner's Court should be an open Court; and he hoped the House, even at the risk of losing the Bill, would restore the clause.

said, he believed there was no real difference of opinion as to the propriety of the Coroner's Court being an open one; and, therefore, he could hardly conceive it possible that the Lords would not agree with that House when it stated its opinion, that this clause ought to be inserted. If he felt that, by agreeing to the Motion to dissent from the Lords' Amendment, the Bill could not be carried, he would not give it his support; but he thought, that the House ought certainly to state to the Lords, that it disagreed with their Amendment, because the case stated by the hon. member for Wigan, of a Coroner who did persevere in excluding the public from his Court, showed that some legislative interference was necessary. Having always supported the principle, that those Courts ought to be open Courts, he thought the best course he could pursue, in order to support that opinion, was to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, because he could not believe that in that case the Lords would insist upon their Amendment. If they did, the question must again come under the consideration of the House.