POST OFFICE. (Hansard, 15 May 1846)

§ MR. CARDWELL
moved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday.

§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE
seeing the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury in his place, wished to ask him a question with reference to inquiry into the Post Office abuses he had lately brought under the consideration of the House. He had been given to understand that the speech he made on a recent occasion had been placed in the hands of Mr. Peacock, the Solicitor to the Post Office, to inquire into the charges which it contained, notwithstanding it had been stated that they were groundless. He wished to know whether his information were correct or not. He understood, also, that some of the letter-carriers were taken before Mr. Peacock to be examined, touching those charges, but, upon asking for a pledge to be held harmless if they told the truth, it was refused. The inquiry was one which ought to be conducted in such a manner as to give satisfaction to the public. He wished, therefore, to know whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to produce the evidence which was taken, and to inform the House of the result of the inquiry.

§ MR. CARDWELL
said, that in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, he would confine himself to an explanation of the course which had been pursued. The Postmaster General being desirous to have a full investigation into the whole question connected with the sub-sorters, had considered it judicious that the inquiry should be conducted by gentlemen who were not connected with the Post Office department, and, therefore, he had appointed the solicitor of the Post Office to conduct the 616 investigation. At first the president of the inland department, and the inspector of the sub-sorters had been present during the examination of the letter-carriers; but as some of the witnesses had objected to the presence of those persons, they had subsequently been examined in their absence. In the present stage of the proceedings, however, it must be obvious to the hon. Gentleman, that he could give him no further information. The result of the inquiry should be made known immediately after its termination.