§ Sir C. KnightleySeeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, I wish to ask him whether he is aware that a person, who is in the habit of receiving annually large sums out of the Post-office, has recently been informed that he will no longer receive them from that department, but must get a warrant for them from the Stamp-office, as the Post-office is no longer able to pay its own expenses?
§ The Chancellor of the ExchequerI have not heard of any such statement; and I think, that if such a circumstance had occurred, I must have been made acquainted with it.
§ Sir C. KnightleyI have not done with the right hon. Gentleman. I have another question to ask him. Is there any chance of his making fresh regulations for the management of the Post-office? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why I ask that question. On the 18th of January last, the porter of the Carlton Club— [Laughter] Why should hon. Gentleman laugh? The Carlton Club is surely as respectable as the Reform Club. Well, on the 18th of January last, the porter of the Carlton Club went at twenty-five minutes to six o'clock with the letters of that club to the receiving-house at Char-ing-cross. There was such a crowd before it that he could not get with his letters to the window, so he went round to the door of the house. He was told that they did not take in letters there, and was in consequence obliged to try the window again. Whilst looking about him, he saw the porter of the Athenaeum close to the window, and he asked him to take his letters, mentioning their number and the money due for them. [Confusion in the House.] The man at the Post-office window, seeing this done by our porter, swore and cursed at him, and used very abusive language. I will now tell the House what happened to myself on Monday last. ["Order," from various parts of the House.]
§ The Speakersaid, there was no question before the House, and that he was, therefore, out of order, when
§ Sir C. Knightleyproceeded—I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to make any alteration in the regulations of the Post-office? And for this reason:—On Monday last, I put a letter into the Post office myself, and I put in another on Tuesday last. I have no doubt, therefore, that the letters were put into the Post-office. I have this day heard that neither the letter which I put into the post on Monday, nor that which I put into it on Tuesday, has yet been received. Another question which I have to ask relates to a money letter, which was sent up to London from the country. For several days the letter and the remittance were lost, but at last it was found that the letter-carrier had stolen the letter. 1313 I want to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new regulations had any hand in this?
§ The Chancellor of the ExchequerIf the hon. Baronet, instead of bringing his charges against the Post-office in a way in which the forms of the House almost preclude me from giving any answer to them, will have the goodness to put them down in writing, particularizing, at the same time, names, dates, and places, and will give me time to make the necessary inquiry into the correctness of those charges, he will find every inclination on my part to procure him satisfaction. If any officer, either in the Post-office or in any other public department of the Government over which I have control, shall have been guilty of such conduct as the hon. Baronet has mentioned, I can assure him that from me at least that officer shall receive no encouragement. At the same time I must tell the hon. Baronet, that it is not fair that these accusations should be made without notice, as under such circumstances neither the Government nor its officers have the means of entering on their defence.
§ Mr. Barnebyclaimed for a short time the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had that morning received a letter from one of his constituents, stating that about fourteen days ago he transmitted the sum of 75l. to one of his correspondents in a letter through the Post-office, and that he had since discovered that both the money and the letter had been lost. His correspondent had also been informed that a friend of his at Dudley had lost 60l. in a similar manner. He had made communication of these circumstances to the authorities of the Post-office, and he believed that they were now undergoing inquiry there. The question which he had to ask was, whether it was the intention of Government to check as much as possible the transmission of money letters through the Post-office?
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it advisable that parties should not transmit large sums of money through the Post-office, as it was impossible to guarantee entire security for such sums in the large number of letters now delivered. Small sums, however, might be transmitted through the post in perfect safety by an order from one post-office upon another.
§ Mr. Goulburnsuggested that a branch office should be formed for the purpose of transmitting money letters and money orders, and that in this office a system of registration should be adopted. Such an office would be a great advantage to the public.
§ Mr. BarnebyAm I, then, to understand that it is not the intention of the Government to resume the system of registration of money letters which formerly prevailed?
§ The Chancellor of the ExchequerThere never was any system of registration for money letters. Letters supposed to contain sovereigns had been placed apart; but there never was a regular system of registration. Considering the multitude of letters which now pass through the Post-office, it was impossible, from the loss of time it would occasion, to establish a system of registration. Indeed, he had felt it to be his duty to advise the authorities of the Post-office to issue a caution against transmitting money letters through the Post-office.
§ Subject dropped.