Lords Sitting of 15 April 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Public Works; Public Works (Ireland).

THE POSTMASTER OF HUNTINGDON— QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SANDWICHbegged to ask the noble Duke the Postmaster General what were the reasons which induced him to withdraw the prosecution of the postmaster at Huntingdon at the last assizes? The case was that the postmaster, being the agent for the sale of an article by a London tradesman, opened a letter containing a Post-office order and an order for the article in question, and sent up to town a Post-office order in his own name for the sum for which the other order was drawn, less the amount of his own commission. The case against him was fully made out, and, indeed, he had confessed his offence, but the prosecution was not carried out against him. In a case in Staffordshire, the postmaster at Rugely opened a letter, and was prosecuted to conviction, and was now undergoing imprisonment for the offence. He thought that it should be fully known that in all cases of this kind the Post-office officials would meet with punishment.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that in the case of the Postmaster of Huntingdon, it had appeared to the Post-office authorities that it was not an offence which was intended to defraud the revenue, but that the alteration in the amount of the Post-office order, and the substitution of another, was only for the purpose of obtaining a small commission to which he was entitled on the sale of the article ordered from a London tradesman, whose agent he was. The course pursued by the Post-office authorities was to punish

1047
official offences themselves; but in a cases of criminal prosecution for felony the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted. In this instance the case had been submitted to the Attorney General, and he did not advise that a prosecution should be instituted. In the Staffordshire case, the Attorney General advised that the postmaster of Rugely should be prosecuted. But though no prosecution was instituted against the postmaster of Huntingdon, he had been dismissed by the Post-office authorities.

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL— EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that on looking at the Votes that morning he found, to his surprise, that at the close of the proceedings on the previous evening the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal had laid on the table a Bill to amend the Act for reforming the University of Oxford which had passed two years ago. No doubt the noble Earl had a right to lay any Bill on the table without notice; but, considering his (the Earl of Derby's) connection with the University, he thought that in courtesy the noble Earl might have afforded him an opportunity of learning that such a Bill was to be brought forward, and what was its nature. It was a matter of regret, after a question of this kind had received what was supposed to be a final settlement two years ago, that any course should be taken which involved interference with an Act which had so recently been passed; and no such Bill ought to have been laid on the table without notice, or without a word being said about it. He thought that the University should have had some notice of the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on this subject; they might have had such notice, but he was not aware of it. He should be glad to know what was the object of the Bill.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYregretted that he should have omitted to mention the Bill to the noble Earl:—he certainly would have done so if the question involved in the Bill had been of any importance. The object of the Bill was merely to supply an almost clerical error in the Act of 1854, the clauses of which in regard to endowments did not provide for cases in which there were private Acts of Parliament.
House adjourned to Thursday next.