HC Deb 18 April 1871 vol 205 cc1259-80
MR. C. REED

rose, pursuant to Notice, to move— That the employment by the State of upwards of twenty thousand persons in the department of the Post Office on the Sabbath Day, is not justified by any public necessity; and that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the exemption from Sunday labour enjoyed by the Letter-carriers of London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, and one hundred and fourteen other Post Towns, should be extended to all Letter-carriers and Rural Messengers throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member presented Petitions signed by 16,800 persons in favour of his Motion, and said: Mr. Speaker—Sir, in introducing this question I can assure the House that I am not about to open up a discussion upon Sabbath observance. No reference will be made by me to scriptural warrant, or to religious duties. I content myself with simply asserting a general recognition of a day of rest, and I challenge the opinion of the House as to its universal obligation. My object is not to enforce obedience to legislative enactment, but to secure liberty of action, and while I recognize value in such legislation so far as it has had its foundations laid in obedience to the will of God, I plead only a great and growing desire in the country that one day in seven should be set apart for rest. My claim is that, however men may employ the opportunity, they should be at liberty to cease from ordinary daily toil; for, apart from religious considerations, I affirm it to be necessary for the health and happiness of every human being. In saying this, it must at once be admitted that the rule has its exception. The policeman must not leave his beat, the sentry must keep his guard, the mariner must navigate the ship, and the coastguard must remain at his post of observation. Clearly, these are works of necessity, and, happily for these men, provision is made, by alternate service, to lighten the stress of the labour; but the duty of the carrier of letters is a constant one, and, as I believe, as a rule unnecessary. As a class, these men are admitted to be meritorious and respectable; they are selected men, chosen for their intelligence, sobriety, and honesty; and I put it to the House whether, being so trustworthy, they are not deserving of great consideration? It is very generally known that these public servants have their grievance, as who has not? I observe the Postmaster General smiles; but the right hon. Gentleman is newly arrived at his Office, and he will become enlightened by - and - by. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster General congratulate each other and the House on the nourishing condition of the Department, they ought to be aware—if, indeed, they do not know—of the soreness, irritation, and discontent prevailing in it. I can only state my belief, upon undoubted evidence, that the men of our Post Office are about the hardest worked and worst paid of any of the servants of the Crown, and I say this with great regret, because it is not a creditable state of things in a country like this. In reference to the remuneration of the men, I have, of course, little to do. It is a question of contract, and rests with the Department; but that superior men should be employed to walk from 18 to 25 miles a-day, for seven days in the week, for the miserable stipend of 12s. to 18s., is not justifiable. I gather, from authorized statements in letters from postmasters and carriers of letters received last year, when I first gave Notice of this Motion, what, in the main, the complaints are. In substance, they are these— Sunday work is the greatest grievance. The men have to deliver on the journey out, and to collect on return, with a lodging to provide during the interval. Duties.—Very laborious, the roads usually being in bad order. The men have to make their way over fields, through bogs, down lanes of mud. Only have Christmas boxes, and these the authorities consider as part of their salary. Wages.—Various, according to distance to be travelled over daily; also varying as to the locality, &c. The scale seems to be adjusted by the rate of wage among the agricultural labourers of the district. 6s., 8s., 10s., and 14s. may be looked on as the full extent of the range; and the wage may be any amount between these sums, especially of the lower sums. No increment—no promotion—no sick pay—no uniform, only the leather letter-bags to keep the letters dry—no annual holidays; and occasionally perhaps a very small superannuation (say 2s. 6d. weekly) at 60 years of age. On entering service underwent medical and arithmetical examination—gave guarantees, securities, and history of past life of self and family. Have calculated some deliver letters weekly to the value of £5 or £6 to General Post Office; for this get 12s. or 13s. Good profit. Daily Mileage.—16, 18, 20, to 25 miles; in some cases 170 miles weekly. Work much increasing daily, and has been for some time past. Complain bitterly everywhere. Have petitioned frequently without effect. Sir, these things ought to be mentioned in this House, because petitioning the Department is of little use. The Brighton men have petitioned, and a visit from the surveyor was the result, with threats of dismissal upon repetition of the offence. Bristol petitioned, and the men were curtly told that they might leave as soon as they pleased; and Birmingham fared no better, the memorialists being informed that plenty of men were to be had at the price, and that the Postmaster General would not sanction any alterations. In fact, all over the land this high functionary of St. Martin's-le-Grand—known familiarly as the "P. M. G. of the G. P. O."—is held up as a terror to the employés; but I am sure this House will agree with me that so soon as the amiable qualities of the present holder of that office are known as we know them, he will only be "a terror to evil-doers, but a praise to those who do well." The greatest hardship of all, however, is that of Sunday labour. The men hold, and I think justly, that the Sunday belongs to them by right—that is, by Act of Parliament—and that the circumstances under which the boon granted has been lost to them, make the deprivation under which they suffer a peculiar hardship. In 1850, Lord Ashley in this House carried an Address to the Crown, praying that no delivery or collection of letters should take place on Sunday. I quote the words— That Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct, that the collection and delivery of letters should, in future, entirely cease on Sunday in all parts of the kingdom:—And, also, that Her Majesty would cause an inquiry to be made as to how far, without injury to the public service, the transmission of the Mails on the Lord's Day might be diminished, or entirely suspended. This was carried; the inquiry was instituted; and Her Majesty's Gracious Answer was received directing that Sunday labour should cease. And what happened. The change was made so suddenly as to prove inconvenient. Noble Lords complained that they could not get their letters, farmers that they could not receive their newspapers, and the Press generally pronounced the decision in the public interest to be hasty and cruel; and without doubt it was too sweeping a measure. Under these circumstances it was that within three months the question was again raised in the House, and, under the pressure of public excitement, an Address was agreed— Referring it to a Commission to inquire and report, whether the amount of Sunday labour in the Post Office might not be reduced without completely putting an end to the collection and delivery of Letters, &c. on the Sunday. Now, Sir, the House must recollect that at this date there was no 1s. telegram, and no second delivery in towns, communication in case of emergency was costly and uncertain, and for these reasons the House reversed its decision of the previous May, though it clearly held by its intention that public opinion should, as far as possible, be regarded. Before the Commission reported in August the House was up, and there was no opportunity to review its recommendation, which was in these words— That in retaining a Sunday delivery of letters in a rural district, the Postmaster General be guided by the prevalent feeling of the locality; and that where the prevalent feeling of the district is opposed to such delivery, the Postmaster General, after satisfying himself of the fact, take the requisite steps for suspending it. The Marquess of Clanricarde, the Postmaster General, forthwith issued a regulation that— Whenever the discontinuance of a rural post on Sundays is requested by a memorial signed by the receivers of six-sevenths of the Sunday letters, such post shall be withdrawn; and further, that on a similar memorial, requesting that the rural messenger shall make a delivery only, he shall be released from the duty of making a collection of letters on that day. Where his Lordship lighted upon this ingenious contrivance I do not know; but it appears to me to be one of those patent self-adjusting devices by which Government seeks too often to shift its own responsibility on to the shoulders of the public. However this may be, the six-sevenths test was adopted, and no one was found to challenge its fairness. Prior to 1850, 409 post towns had decided the question in favour of the postman, and under the new rule efforts were made so successfully that in very many cases nearly the whole population signed the memorial, and yet the regulation operated so unfairly that a few persons could counteract the "prevalent feeling of a locality," if they only received letters enough to do so. The regulation was rendered more stringent by a new provision to this effect— The petition must be signed by the persons who receive on seven Sundays six-sevenths of all the letters at the office for those Sundays. The letters for the persons who have signed the petition and the letters for those who have not signed it are counted on two Sundays. Sir, in this House we are accustomed to deal with majorities, and the people understand the meaning of "large proportions," but they did not see the justice of this new-fangled scheme. Nor was this the only impediment. Parliament meant to say, "let the people decide for themselves," and the postman, very naturally interested in his own appeal, canvassed his district for signatures. Being a general favourite, he usually succeeded; so much so, in fact, that town after town yielded to the force of his appeal, until the result grew formidable, and an official check was thought desirable. I must explain to the House how this delicate operation was performed. A person who signed the request did so in these words—"I request that my letters and newspapers may not be delivered on Sunday until further notice." The next post brought him an official "warning in these terms"— Before acting on your request it may be desirable that I should remind you that such a request must remain in force for not less than three months, and cannot then be cancelled without a week's notice, and while it remains in force no letters will be delivered either to yourself or to any messenger sent by you to the Post Office, and that no exception can be made as regards letters marked 'immediate,' or having on the address, special injunction for prompt delivery. If after this you think fit to sign the enclosed, &c, &c. And what was "the enclosed?" Why it was this—"I make this request with the full knowledge of the conditions, &c." No doubt, some hon. Member may say, "a very proper precaution." It seems to me that is more than precaution, it amounts to a warning, it is calculated to deter, and, as I conceive, it is both injurious to the man and unfair to Parliament. Still, the Parliamentary Return shows that more than 109,000 receivers of letters readily signed even this stringent request. I regret to say this was not all the warning to letter receivers. It was followed by threatening the letter-carriers. The following circular was issued to postmasters in 1866:— His Lordship directs that no attention shall be paid to any request for the discontinuance of a Sunday delivery which the Postmaster may have reason to believe has resulted from the solicitation of the letter-carriers or rural messengers. Under these circumstances, what could the men do? Again their efforts were thwarted, and they felt that they had been grievously trifled with. A letter-carrier says— In every parish more than nine-tenths of the inhabitants signed. In some, not one stood out of the whole village. I despatched the memorial after having it duly certified by the clergyman of the parish, and expecting a reply, when this morning the Postmaster General issued an order that no such petitions would be attended to. Another writes to me— I got all the names of the inhabitants of North and South—except three—the parson, the squire, and his steward, and a manufacturer. These petitioned against it, and it almost cost me my situation, having served 25 years without a blot upon my character officially (except my interference as above is such). I get the miserable pittance of 5s. 10d. per week. A clergyman, in Suffolk, writes thus— Our postman has to walk 17 or 18 miles per day, without any break, through the year. I brought the matter before the clergy of the district, and as the result the men were released from their Sunday work as far as delivery of letters went; but the Postmaster then told them that, notwithstanding, they must go the same round and collect the letters. The men saw that if they were relieved from delivering letters the obvious claims of their case on the sympathy of the people would be gone, and they therefore carry out Sunday letters to this day. But if the regulations had provided for the collection of letters in the same way as for their distribution, these men would have been freed from this work three years ago. Well, Sir, the grievance was so great that the men appealed to that friend of humanity, Lord Brougham; who, though not concurring in the action of Parliament in 1850, headed a deputation, and presented a memorial to Lord Stanley of Alderley, the prayer of which was— To permit the men to obtain signatures to memorials which may be evidence to justify the abolition of Sunday labour. The answer to this appeal was so decidedly in the negative as to induce his Lordship to abandon his benevolent intentions; and I am bound to say the postman's hope would have died out had not the ministers of religion all through the country taken up his abandoned cause as one of right and justice. Unfortunately increased activity brought increased obstruction. A gentleman, referring to this vexatious action, says— At length the petition was completed; it contained 3,000 signatures. It was forwarded to the Postmaster General, who promptly replied that he could not close the Post Office on Sundays unless the wish was unanimous; a decision altogether contravening the intentions of Parliament and the regulations then in force of the Post Office. A clergyman writes to me from Shropshire, and says— Within the last 18 months I have sent two memorials to the Postmaster General to obtain Sunday rest for the postman. Both were rejected, on the ground that they did not pass the 'six-sevenths' barrier. From the circumstances of the case it is obvious that the mode of determining the question was utterly hollow and unjust. The district contains two parishes, with their two clergymen, a squire's residence, and several farmers. The rest are entirely labourers and small shopkeepers. All the above, except the occupants of the hall, signed the memorial; every farmer and all his family, every shopman with his family, and every labourer who was asked. Of this last class there are many whom it was useless to ask, as they do not send or get six letters per annum. The squire's house is not in my parish, and I know but little of the occupants; but the case stands thus—an eminent London barrister, a Q.C., in extensive practice passes much of his time there, and he actually receives letters enough to swamp all the rest, or else he exercises his personal influence at head-quarters to thwart us. How unfair it is that four or five persons should in a matter of this kind gain their point against the votes of some hundreds. I am reluctant, Sir, to occupy the time of the House with extracts from letters, which, for obvious reasons, are presented without name or address; and yet I must ask indulgence while I present the men's own case in their own language. It is sometimes said, and most unfairly, I think, that the working classes have no representatives in this House; of this I am sure, that they never lack advocates, and of all causes the claims of labour receive here the greatest consideration. These men, as I have shown to the House, have been denied the opportunity of memorializing, and prohibited from petitioning, and under these circumstances they have communicated, unsolicited, with me, with an earnest request that I would lay their case, not before the Department, but before Parliament. A postman in Sussex says—"I have not teen able to go to church for three years." A rural messenger in Essex says—"I have to walk 15 miles every Sunday, and I think it is a disgrace to my country." Another in Suffolk says—"I should be very glad to have my Sunday, as I have not had one for years." One in Warwickshire writes— My father has been a letter carrier for 25 years. It takes till late to get through the district, and then dirty and tired he goes to bed or drinks at the tavern. A letter-carrier in Sussex, says— I leave C—at 6 in the morning. I have to go altogether not less than 20 miles daily. I get 2s. a day. I would not care about the pay if I could get off Sunday work. I work harder on Sunday than I do on any other day in the week, as I have only one and a-half hours rest from 6 in the morning till 1.40. A messenger in Warwickshire says— I have to rise at 5 o'clock, and am on duty till 12.30, walking a distance of 22 miles on Sunday, summer and winter. Another says— I have been a letter-carrier 17 years, and my father, who is still a letter-carrier, has been in the service for 39 years. Some years ago we petitioned and got our Sunday, but to our great sorrow it lasted only three weeks. A man in Somersetshire says—"I walk over 130 miles a week, and last Sunday delivered only three letters in three miles." A postman, lately released from Sunday work, says— I start from A—with 12 bags. When I first took my appointment my wages were 15s. a week—after 5 years they lowered me 6d. for one bag taken off, and now, if I get off Sunday work, another 6d. will go, leaving 14s. for 108 miles, a six days' week. A rural postman, who is called "the Walking Poet," says, in words which do equal credit to his head as to his heart— But the blessed Sabbath is our own. It is the excellent gift of the beneficent Maker; let no man rob us of the boon; it is the heirloom of our children, it shall never be alienated from their possession. Sir, I will not venture to quote further from a pile of letters by my side; but I will ask the House to hear the opinion of some uninterested and unbiassed persons on the subject. A Yorkshire magistrate says— Our postman walks 18 miles. One near us, with the ins-and-outs of his beat, walks near 27 miles. Bad roads, heavy snows, drenching rains are endured for the convenience of a few public-houses who want their paper. The Rector of a parish in Cheshire says— I have successfully used my influence in abolishing a Sunday delivery. Our walking postman regularly attends church, and my impression is that no man walking upwards of 20 miles a-day can sustain his frame without an intervening day of rest. The Vicar says— I have succeeded in having the Sunday delivery stopped here. Last Sunday was our postman's first rest for 14 years. The working people were all for the discontinuance of the delivery. Such, Sir, is the condition of these men, and their number is very large, who, from all parts of the United Kingdom, are looking to this House for justice. It appears by a Return, dated July 30, 1866, that there were at that date—

Persons employed in the Post Office on Sundays 20,964
Post Offices open on Sundays for the sale and purchase of stamps, &c. 9,486
Now, Sir, what I have to say of this is, that if all this is not necessary, it is not justifiable, and if not justified by public necessity, it is immoral, it is inconsistent with our legislation, it creates Sunday labour, it wrongs public servants, and it presents a bad example on our part as employers of labour. Upon this matter of "necessity" I have taken considerable pains to inform myself. I have watched the collections for and in the London post on Saturdays, and I have followed those collections where they became deliveries. The result of my observation is that but a small portion of the Saturday's posting is intended for Sunday delivery. The posting of Saturday is often the clearing of the week, arrears are brought up, things are got out of hand; it is admitted to be so, and hence it may fairly be termed inconsiderate and needless, the delivery at the other end being intended for Monday and not for Sunday. The deliveries in our country towns on Sunday are mainly business cards and trade circulars, the samples of the pattern post, the larger packages of the parcel post, the dimensions of which are increased by recent concessions; and I have the authority of a postmaster for saying not one in 100 of all these are needed for Sunday delivery, and that newspapers now might all reach their destination on Saturday by late mails. In 1850, the inconveni- ence of having no means of communication in cases of urgency was much dwelt upon; but in reference to this the testimony at the present time is decidedly in the opposite direction. A banker says— What is the urgency? In this busy town only three out of 523 receivers of letters declined to sign the memorial, one of these saying that Sunday was the only day for newspapers. A clergyman says— I have forwarded a petition from this parish, which I believe would have been signed, had opportunity been given, by all who can write their names among my 1,400 people, except one squire, one of whose objections, stated in writing to myself, being that if he could not receive his paper on Sunday morning he would not know where 'the meet' was on Monday. A clergyman, writing from Devonshire, says— In all these eight parishes there is no delivery of letters on Sundays, and I do not hear that any inconvenience is felt in consequence. Another from Mold says— This is a mining district, where a great deal of business is transacted; but those engaged in business will tell you that they prefer not having their letters on Sunday. The incumbent of Holme says— Some years back the delivery of letters ceased on the Sabbath Day, and in this and three adjoining townships I never have heard of any inconvenience resulting from the change. If this were not enough, surely, Sir, the fact that from such towns as Birmingham, Derby, Coventry, and Manchester, memorials largely signed have been presented, while Liverpool shows 27,000 mercantile men desirous not to have a Sunday delivery.

And what is the opinion in the Department itself? What says Sir Rowland Hill? I quote his official minute, in which he says— As regards collection and delivery, London is already in the state proposed, and though the delivery of Sunday in provincial towns is probably the heaviest in the week, still there could be no insuperable obstacle to placing any other town, where the inhabitants in general so desire it, in a similar position. The suspension of collection and delivery might be adopted without detriment in detail according to the wish of each particular place. And the surveyors to the Post Office say— With respect to the total suspension of all delivery on Sunday, it is obvious that the measure would be a great boon to the servants of the Post Office; and if the public mind is prepared to acquiesce in such a proposal, we do not perceive that it is liable to any objection on the part of the Post Office. With such evidence as this before us, how can we doubt as to the practicability of the measure now urged upon the House? Again, Sir, I must refer to the manifest unfairness where letters are delivered to some persons, and not to others in adjoining postal districts. Where letters come, attention to business is sure to follow, and the man who avoids for his own sake and for the sake of his workpeople Sunday labour suffers unnecessarily on account of it. Nor is the unfairness less to the letter-carriers, 6,148 of whom have secured their day of rest, while 5,721 have not. And after all, if London with its four millions can do without a delivery, why should the country have it?—if Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast are content, why should country towns and villages complain? I point the right hon. Gentleman to the United States as an example, and he will find one more recent and still better known to him in the dominion of Canada. Let him put the whole country on the same footing as London. If senators, bankers, merchants, traders, and foreigners of this huge centre of the world can do without a Sunday collection or delivery, cannot the whole country do the same? Then, Sir, as to the objections raised in 1850. It seems to me that, in the main, they have been met by the great changes these 20 years have produced. The postal deliveries all over the land have been accelerated, and the telegraph wire is everywhere. Science, the handmaid of commerce, has become the handmaid of humanity and religion, and the fickle element "coaxed by Franklin from the clouds" becomes our fleetest post and our most certain carrier, flashing our messages instantaneously from the Lizard to the Hebrides. Few Returns of greater interest have been presented to the House in this Parliament than that of last February, showing the development of our telegraph system. Referring to the extension of the wires, and to the development of the system generally, I find that the following very startling results have been achieved during the brief period since the transfer of the system to the Post Office:—51,311 miles of wire in existence under the companies, have been increased to 63,318 miles under the Post Office. 1,800 instruments have been increased to over 4,000. A little over 1,000 offices open for telegraphic business in February last year, had been increased to within a fraction of 2,000 on the 31st December last; and the opening of new offices was being urged forward at the rate of from 20 to 30 a-week. In addition to this large number of postal telegraph offices proper, business is transacted on behalf of the Department at no fewer than 1,800 railway stations throughout the kingdom. If this be so, the telegraph employed up to a late hour on Saturday and in all urgent cases on Sunday would answer for all actual necessity, and involve really little Sunday labour, and none which could not be justified by public necessity. A merchant makes a suggestion in these words— Why should not the Postmaster General make it legal for any letter to be detained at the Post Office till Monday, unless it has 'to be delivered on Sunday' written on it, with a sixpenny stamp in proof of its urgency. What arrangement the Postmaster General may propose, I cannot tell; but this I know, that the public being aware that the power is given to him in the 9th clause, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 52, in these words— That all post letters shall be posted, forwarded, conveyed, and delivered under and subject to all such orders and directions, regulations, limitations, and restrictions as the Postmaster General with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury shall from time to time direct, they will expect him to propound a scheme fair to the men and framed in the liberal spirit of the intentions of Parliament. Sir, I have presented my case to the House. I prove the "prevalent public feeling," testified by more than 1,000,000 signatures in 1850, and 124,229 in 1871. I have shown that my plea is for those who cannot plead for themselves; and all I ask is, that the arrangements for Sunday postal delivery shall provide only for what necessity and mercy may require. The Resolution I propose amounts, in fact, to this—minimize Sunday labour. Adopt such regulations as are necessary to secure this object; but virtually restore to the men their day of rest. I have heard one objection urged, and it is this—that the letter-carriers will be injured by any deduction from their wretched pay. Well, Sir, I take leave to say the Chancellor if the Exchequer must moderate his requirements. He must be content with an obvious saving and increasing profits, and not mulct the men in 6d. for Sunday labour, which, after all, is illegiti- mate service. Twelve shillings is poor pay enough for six days work; let the seventh be given in obedience to the ancient command—"That thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou." And, after all, it is well to bring it home to ourselves. We take ample care of our own comfort in this respect. I cannot forget the reception given to the proposal of the hon. Member for Elgin Boroughs last Session, when he calmly invited the House to witness the unfolding of his Indian Budget on a Saturday afternoon. The fact is, we preserve our Saturday and often shorten our proceedings on a Friday night in order to secure the certain enjoyment of a day of rest at our own homes and with our families. What we do is done by the Government; no one would expect to find any Department open on Sunday, and the fact is no one is employed, not even upon public works, and even in seasons of great urgency this House is accustomed to take notice of any deviation from this wholesome rule. Our dockyards are closed, and all is as silent at Pembroke as in the quarries at Portland—even to the convict as to the pauper the day of rest is given. Happily the stern necessities of great State affairs has not accustomed us, as on the Continent, to hear of Cabinet Councils summoned on the Sunday. The labour of Parliament is severe enough, and by it we have earned the discredit of having found a sure and speedy method of killing public servants; yet I venture to express a confident hope and belief that in the midst of his most arduous duties the Prime Minister himself knows what it is to secure the peace of an undisturbed Sabbath. And in this respect, Sir, whatever foreigners may say of our "dull practices" in England, we owe very much to the example of the Court, and it is a source of great satisfaction to the people that Her Majesty the Queen lends her high sanction in this direction. Considering, Sir, that such is the evident feeling of the community, and with a plea so strong in justice from so large a class of our public servants, I trust the right hon. Gentleman, following the pattern of an illustrious predecessor, the late Sir Robert Peel, will rise in his place and say— It is the will of the people of England that the Sabbath Day shall be respected, and therefore I support this Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the employment by the State of upwards of twenty thousand persons in the department of the Post Office on the Sabbath Day, is not justified by any public necessity; and that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the exemption from Sunday labour enjoyed by the Letter-carriers of London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, and one hundred and fourteen other Post Towns, should be extended to all Letter-carriers and Rural Messengers throughout the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Charles Reed.)

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, my hon. Friend will be able to perceive the reason why it is I rise after his speech rather than my right hon. Friend at the head of the Post Office Department (Mr. Monsell), who is, more strictly speaking, the party to the question than perhaps the other Members of the Government. Now, I have listened to my hon. Friend with much care, and I admit, in the first place, that his Motion is of a description calculated of itself to win a great deal of favour and support from this House. The motives that the hon. Member has appealed to are motives which touch the heart and the feelings; and my hon. Friend has, with great sincerity and earnestness, and, I must admit, with great skill, made his appeal to that source of strength, and he has spoken, as he always does speak on a subject of this character, in a spirit of genuine philanthrophy, not to refer to higher motives, which undoubtedly would give great weight to the recommendations that proceed from him. I may, perhaps, for my own part, say that my predispositions are rather in the direction of the feelings of my hon. Friend. When Motions relating to Sunday observance are brought before this House, I will not say that I have always found it in my power to support them, but I have always had a desire, if able, to support them; and I say that, not because I am prepared to urge very strongly that the legislation of this House should be conformed to the strictly religious opinions which many of its Members may conscientiously entertain, but because I do feel undoubtedly, that as an object of civil policy, and irrespective altogether of religious opinion, it is a most legitimate purpose for Members of this House, and for the House itself, to seek to restrain, as much as possible, the exercise of labour on Sunday, and to secure to the people the enjoyment of a day of rest. My hon. Friend has drawn a somewhat sanguinely-coloured picture of the privileges which he presumes to be enjoyed by myself and the position which I have the honour to hold. I cannot deny that the element of romance enters a little into the disposition of the objects of that picture; but, at the same time, I will admit that, from the long experience of a laborious life, I have certainly been most deeply impressed with the belief—to say nothing of higher considerations—that the alternation of rest with labour at short intervals which is afforded by the merciful and blessed institution of the Sunday is a necessity for the retention of the human mind and the human frame in a condition to discharge their duties. Having said this, I must proceed in a strain of remark in which, though it may not be entirely and without qualification agreeable to the wishes of my hon. Friend—and in which I hope he will not detect anything at variance with what I have just said—I feel myself called on to make to him a strong appeal. But, before doing this, I wish to make one very distinct admission to my hon. Friend, which I think he may regard as a consideration that may influence him in the course of this debate. A good deal of the speech of my hon. Friend was occupied with an interesting detail of the proceedings of 1850, and of the measures subsequently adopted by the Post Office authorities. My hon. Friend pointed out the extraordinary stringency, as he considered it, of the conditions which had been laid down, as if for the purpose, as he appeared to suggest, of nullifying any desire entertained by the House of Commons for the restriction of Sunday labour. Now, on my part, and on the part of the Postmaster General, I feel bound to make the admission to my hon. Friend that, with reference to the enactments which he quoted restraining the operation of the principle of restriction of Sunday labour, he did, to some extent, make out his case. Those provisions were, undoubtedly, of such a nature as to operate very considerably in favour of those who were disposed to keep Post Offices open on Sunday; and, therefore, anything that the Government or the Postmaster General may intend would certainly not be received in precisely the same spirit as those proceedings to which my hon. Friend has referred. We have now to look at this Motion, not merely in the light of philanthrophy, or in the light of our own wishes—and do not suppose that I use the word philanthrophy with levity—but we have to look at it very strictly with regard to the actual consequences that its sudden adoption in the form of a general and a rigid Resolution would be likely to produce. Now, let us see what is the Motion? The Motion is a condemnation, without exception, of the employment of letter-carriers and rural messengers in the delivery of letters throughout the United Kingdom on Sundays. Suppose the Motion passed, what would be the duty of the Government? There are occasions, I am bound to say, on which a vote of this House absolves the Executive Government from their responsibility. There are duties pertaining to the Executive that cannot be taken off its shoulders by the vote of this House. I do not think that this is one of the cases. This is a Motion, the adoption of which would demand obedience from the Executive Government. It would, therefore, be the duty of the Executive Government under a Motion of this sort, allowing of no reference of time or circumstance, nor to any quality or variety whatever, to take measures, universal in their scope, very promptly, for the entire cessation of the distribution of letters on the Sunday in every district of the country. If that is so, let us consider what the effect of such a measure so adopted would be. My hon. Friend has refrained from asking us to go the length of stopping communication by public means altogether on Sunday. His speech is founded distinctly on an explicit recognition of that proposition; but he points out that there are two safety-valves in the measure he proposes. The first is the Sunday delivery at the Post Offices. Now, I am bound to say that in a great number of the cases the cessation of the labour of the letter-carriers on the Sunday in order to substitute for it the Sunday delivery at the Post Offices means not a restriction but a great augmentation of Sunday labour. I know of a case in which a friend of mine, feeling it necessary to have his letters on Sunday, sends his servant for them to the Post Office, and that servant generally finds eight or ten other servants sent on the same errand, each of them having made a journey to the Post Office, each of them carrying the letters, not of a number of individuals, but the letters of one particular person. I am not going to contend on that ground that there ought to be a universal Sunday delivery by the letter-carrier; but I am going to argue that the question is one for examination in detail, and that it ought to be considered from point to point with care, and what would be the operation of the system of stopping the delivery of letters by carriers, in order to see that you do not produce the evil of increased Sunday labour. There is another part of my hon. Friend's speech, about which there is great difference of opinion—I mean with regard to the telegraphs. He frankly set up the telegraph as the proper substitute for the delivery of letters on Sundays, with a view to a total stoppage of communication on Sunday. I understand from the Postmaster General, although I am not prepared to state the precise number of telegraph offices now open on Sunday, that there is no inconsiderable number of them open on Sunday, and that it is a matter of constant occurrence that he received fresh applications for fresh openings of telegraph offices on that day. Now, my hon. Friend recommends the substitute, to subject to what may fairly be called a fine of a shilling—he went far to recommend that we should look at this as a means of relieving that absolute stoppage of communication which his measure would seem to contemplate. But would that be a wise measure for us universally and precipitately to institute throughout the country as an instrument for the abolition of Sunday labour? What is the case of the telegraph? It is this—that for every message sent through the offices on Sunday there are two personal journeys—two personal journeys for a single message, and the persons employed in these messages are generally almost children or quite young boys, who were certainly not the class of persons with whom you should tamper with respect to the observance of the Sabbath, seeing they had not those habits of self-government one would expect in a grown person. Therefore, again I say I am very unwilling by any such measure to send it forth to the country, as the doctrine and view of the House of Commons, that we are determined to put down labour in the delivery of letters on Sunday, but that wherever a shilling can be afforded they have no objection that the labour shall be performed by means of the telegraph. And, considering the charge for a telegram, I fear this would be regarded also as a concession to the wealthier classes at the expense of the former. My hon. Friend referred almost with scorn to the economical consideration involved in dealing with this Motion. He asked—"Am I to be told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to come down and cut off sixpence from the wages of these poor underpaid men because of their being relieved from labour on Sunday? My hon. Friend drew such a description of the stinted remuneration of this class of persons, that I began to ask myself whether the servants of the Post Office were obtained by Ballot or by a conscription. Because it would really appear that they were a class of persons who were prohibited from taking their labour to the best market, or who were put under some special restrictions not applicable to the rest of the community, and were compelled to labour in the Post Office whether they would or not. But does my hon. Friend consider what is really involved in this question? He says—"Let us disregard these philosophies and raise our minds to higher considerations. Let us resort to generosity." Now, I am very suspicious of Parliamentary generosity. Private generosity I can admire; but public generosity is of a very questionable character, and ought to be tested very severely indeed. But suppose you pass over all verbal criticism, my hon. Friend appeals to us to relieve these persons of their Sunday labour, and continue to pay them their wages for seven days' work; but he should bear in mind that there are two sets of persons employed in the Post Office, one working seven days, the other only six. He asks that we should relieve one of these classes of a day's work and yet put them on a level with the other class as regards wages. I do not think that this is the mode in which the Executive should be bound to act by a vote of the House of Commons in the shape of a Resolution such as that of my hon. Friend. If the House of Commons were disposed to take the matter into its own hands exclusively, I should think that we should be entitled to require of my hon. Friend that he would go before some tribunal and have his case examined in detail, in order to see what may be the operation of the language which he wishes the House to hold. Suppose the Motion were to be carried to-night; looking to the stringency of its terms, it would be our duty to give notice throughout the country that at a certain date Sunday delivery would cease. What would be the consequence? I must say, quite independently of the considerations to which I have adverted, that in many cases the consequence would be a vehement reaction in the public mind; there would be multitudes of people who would not allow force to be placed upon them, and there would be a reflux of opinion against the measure of my hon. Friend, and all because of the error we should commit if we attempted to dispose of the question by a cast-iron rule. We are desirous to co-operate with my hon. Friend as far as we can. But the only way in which we can co-operate with him is by a patient examination in detail, and I would ask my hon. Friend whether it would be consonant with his views to co-operate with us in such examination. The plan I would propose is a Resolution in this form— That it is expedient that an official inquiry should be instituted with a view of ascertaining how far it may be practicable to effect a further reduction of the labour now performed on Sundays by the letter-carriers and rural messengers in the service of the Postmaster General. I may be told that such an inquiry could be instituted without a Resolution of this House; but the passing of a Resolution will give a substantial pledge to the House and to my hon. Friend, and will put him in a position of great advantage to come forward and challenge and criticize us—nay, to force a more stringent measure upon us hereafter if he thinks the inquiry has not been carried out fairly. I cannot help hoping he will be disposed to accept a proposition of this kind. The principle on which I stand is, that you cannot have a universal unbending rule; but that you must be content to consider partly the feelings of the people of different neighbourhoods and partly the circumstances under which the extinction of letter-carrier labour would operate. Even if my hon. Friend has in his own mind a belief that the result of this inquiry will not satisfy him, still let him go with us as far as he can, preserving his own liberty, if he thinks fit, to return to the question on a future day. With these observations I venture to put the Amendment I have read into the hands of the Speaker, hoping that it will be accepted.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GLADSTONE'S

Amendment was then proposed as a substantive Motion.

MR. C. REED

could only consent to the proposal of the Government on condition that the Resolution should be declaratory of the opinion of the House that it was desirable that Sunday rest should be given. ["No, no!"] He did not think there could be any objection to that if it were really intended that the inquiry should have a practical result.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the hon! Member's wish might be carried out.

MR. M'LAREN

said, in the city which he had the honour to represent, the Post Office departments were open between 8 and 9 o'clock on Sunday morning for the delivery of letters to those who called for them, and all the men got away two hours before the congregations assembled in the churches. Now, if that rule were adopted generally all over the country so far as practicable, none of the hardships at present complained of would take place. In some other places it might be more convenient to have the hour between the services, and in others to give the hour in the afternoon after public worship. By means of such arrangements as those, the servants of the Post Office would be able to attend public worship; for one hour had been found in Edinburgh to be amply sufficient for all parties concerned with the delivery of letters. Many hon. Members would remember that a few years ago a statement was issued by the Post Office showing the proportional number of letters delivered in all the great towns of the kingdom, and he believed it was found that, with the exception of London, there was a greater number of letters delivered in Edinburgh, in proportion to its population, than in any other town in the United Kingdom. If one hour was sufficient for that town, which had the greatest number of letters in proportion to its population except London, one hour would surely be sufficient for all the smaller towns in the country. Again, reference was made to the telegraph office being required on Sunday morning. He did not know what the Post Office rule might be on the subject; but he knew that before the telegraphs went into the hands of the Post Office Department, there were only certain hours on Sundays during which telegrams could be sent from the city which he represented, or received, and none of those were during the hours of public worship; which showed that this labour need not prevent the Post Office employés from attending public worship. Then, perhaps, he might be allowed to add a word as to the wages question. The Post Office letter-carriers' case was a special case. For example, if it were the custom to manufacture muskets on a Sunday, and the wages were arranged with reference to seven days' labour, then the financial argument urged by the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown would be good, because the wages would have been fixed with reference to the produce of seven days' labour. Or if they were to employ their Army clothiers in their factories to work seven days a-week, they would, of course, make more coats in the seven days than in the six days, and thus a financial loss would be sustained by giving them seven days' pay for six days' work. But the right hon. Gentleman must remember that in the case of one of those rural postmen, who now delivered 50 letters on a Sunday for which 1d. each was paid to the Government, the same 50 letters would be delivered by the same man on Monday in addition to his usual burden, and there would be no loss whatever—not of the veriest fraction—to the Post Office by making the change, even if no alteration in the wages were to take place. But his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Reed) had said that if the Treasury choose to reduce the wages, the men would submit to it. All that his hon. Friend asked was that, as a matter of grace and favour, such a reduction should not be enforced, and there was not a word in the Resolution itself respecting any reduction. It was merely an argument in his speech, and the House was not pledged in any way by it, but only by the Resolution itself. He (Mr. M'Laren) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would embody in his Amendment some words to the effect that it was the opinion of that House that some diminution of Sunday labour should take place, and then institute an inquiry to see how far the diminution could be carried. Resolved, That this House deems it desirable to reduce, by all prudent means, the Sunday labour now performed by public servants; and that it is expedient that an official inquiry should be instituted, with a view to ascertaining how far it may be practicable to effect a further reduction of the labour now performed on Sunday by the Letter-carriers and Rural Messengers in the service of the Postmaster General.—(Mr. Gladstone.)