§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)who had on the Paper the following Question—To ask the Postmaster-General, Whether it is the fact that he has several times lately, and, if so, in what particular cases, when a Post-mastership salary of £120 in England or £100 in Scotland or Ireland has been proposed, cut the proposal down and given a salary of £119 or £99 as the case may be; whether, in any and what cases posts have been conferred upon persons connected with or related to himself; and, if so, whether in accordance with or contrary to the recommendations of a Committee of the Heads of Branches in the Post Office; whether such Committee have or had actual knowledge of the work of all the men concerned; and, whether he was himself acquainted with their work?
§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)The hon. Member for the Western Division of Cornwall has sent me Notice that he proposes to defer his Question; but I hope the House will allow me to take the earliest opportunity of replying to it. I have to say, Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's first Question, that on two occasions only in England and one in Scotland, to the best of my knowledge, since I have been in Office, I have reduced the proposed salary of £120 in England or £100 in Scotland to £119 or £99 respectively. There has been no such ease in Ireland in my time. There was, I believe, one recent case in which the salary of an Irish post office was so reduced; but that was done by my Predecessor (Lord Wolverton). In the following cases I have raised the salary to above £120 or £100 respectively—Ambleside, Cullompton, Denbigh, Enfield, Fakenham, Hayle, Keswick, Launceston, Llangollen, Sowerby Bridge; and in Scotland, Jedburgh and Turriff; and in Ireland, Fermoy, Letterkenny, Nenagh, and New- 1086 townards, and to these may be added Listowel. As regards the second Question, I have to say that I have in no case conferred any post on any person related to myself; though I can assure the hon. Member that I should not have shrunk from doing so if I had thought such an appointment a proper one in the interests of the Public Service. In one recent case I have promoted to the first class a gentleman whom, together with three or four other deserving clerks, I was requested to supersede by a junior officer. This gentleman belongs, I believe, to a family connected by marriage with another branch of my own; but I have not, and never had, any personal acquaintance with the gentleman in question or with any member of his family. I have no doubt that the Secretary, and those whom he may have consulted, had actual knowledge of the work of the clerks concerned; and I should not have declined to act on their advice if I had not satisfied myself, by inquiry in the Department, that to do so would have been, in my opinion, an act not only unfair to the particular gentleman whom I have promoted, but also injurious to the Public Service, by its discouraging effect on the class to which he belonged.