HC Deb 11 April 1866 vol 182 cc1077-82

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Darby Griffith.)

MR. CHILDERS

said, that the Bill would enable the Postmaster General to sit in that House. The state of things as to the representation of the Government in Parliament was this—Under the Statute of Anne, as amended by that of George II., and by the later Act known as Burke's Act, a limited number of office holders could be Members of the House of Commons. All the great Administrative Departments were or might be represented in the House, but the Revenue Departments were not in the same sense represented. The heads of those Departments such as the Boards of Customs and Inland Revenue, were permanent officials, and it would be of course impossible that any such officials not liable to go out with the Ministry of the day should be eligible to that House. It would be also impolitic to make the heads of these Departments political officers, as their duties ought not to be carried on under the pressure of political considerations. But the Post Office, although technically a Revenue Department, and provided for in the Revenue Estimates, was virtually one of the great Administrative Departments. Hence its head had been for a long time considered as a political officer, going out with the Government; but as he was excluded from that House by the construction of the statutes which he (Mr. Childers) had recited, he was usually a Peer, sitting in the other House. In one case, under Mr. Canning, the Postmaster General was a Commoner, but this was found inconvenient, as the Department was represented in neither House, and the case has not occurred since. He did not think it essential, or indeed expedient, that as a rule the Postmaster General should be in that House. The revenue business of the Department was controlled by the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Postmaster General in this respect acted under the orders of the Treasury, who were represented in that House, and were thus ready to answer any questions relating to the Post Office. But he saw no reason why a distinct and absolute disability should be retained precluding Her Majesty from, if she thought fit, appointing a Member of that House to a political office, usually held by a Cabinet Minister. He therefore should not object to the second reading of the Bill; but it would have to be amended in Committee, the recital in the preamble being incorrect. He presumed the words in the preamble meant to say that every Member of the Government liable to lose office on a change of Ministry might sit in the House of Commons. But this was not so. Not to mention more doubtful instances, all the Secretaries of State, and all the political Under Secretaries could not be at the same time in that House. The hon. Gentleman would remember the difficulty caused, only two years before, by the accidental infringement of this provision in the case of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War. Subject, however, to this and other alterations in Committee, the Government assented to the second reading of the Bill.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he had no exception at all to take to what the hon. Member had stated. The interpretation which the hon. Gentleman had placed on the relations of the civil departments of the country with this House was, of course, a matter of argument which he (Mr. Griffith) did not think it necessary to go into at present, but he quite admitted that the preamble to the Bill would bear amendment. With regard to the disabilities of the Secretaries of State, it should be remembered that, although not more than four could sit in that House at once, there was no disability of any particular Secretary so long as the rule was complied with. There was no absolute statutory impediment to any Member of the Cabinet sitting in that House, except in the case of the Postmaster General. He did not wish to make it obligatory that that officer should have a seat in that House, but simply to remove any legal hindrance to his doing so. He could conceive that a rising Member of the Cabinet with a seat in that House, but holding a sinecure office, might well undertake the duties of the Postmaster Generalship in the event of the chances of political life affording him the opportunity. He begged to acknowledge the perfect courtesy and grace with which the Secretary to the Treasury had received his proposition. The Bill would not take effect while the noble Lord who was at present Postmaster General remained in office, so that during his tenure of the office he would be safe from the operation of the Bill.

MR. HUNT

said, he was sorry that the measure before the House was not of a different nature. He could have wished some proceedings had been taken to abolish the office of Postmaster General altogether, because he believed it was as near a sinecure as possible. Some two or three years ago he had charge of a measure in that House, in consequence of which he had to communicate with the Post Office, and he found that the Secretary of the Post Office was the real manager of that Department. Mr. Peel was the organ of communication with the House, and he always referred, when reference was necessary, to the Secretary of the Post Office, and not to the Postmaster General. He did not know what the Postmaster General did except dispense patronage, but surely some other Member of the Government would relieve him of that burden. He thought that if the Post Office were made a part of the Treasury the Secretary of the Post Office might discharge the duties, and they might dispense with the Postmaster General. He believed the only object in keeping up the office was to pay a compliment to some person of high rank, and give him a salary for doing nothing. It was a waste of the public money. He hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration, and see if they could not do without the Postmaster General altogether.

CAPTAIN GRIDLEY

said, he would like to know what effective duties the Postmaster General really performed, or indeed what he had to perform? It was of no advantage to have an officer with a seat in the House who could give no information to the House, and whose duties were altogether a sinecure.

MR. WALDEGRAVE-LESLIE

said, he desired to express the great satisfaction he felt in knowing that the Government were going to support the Bill. He was sorry to say there was a total want of responsibility in regard to some other offices in one great department of the Post Office; and the officials very often dealt with complaints which were sent to them in a most uncourteous manner. The Post Office officials had refused altogether to entertain the complaints made with regard to the very serious delays connected with the postal service of Fife; and within the last few days they had signed a contract with the Caledonian Railway Company for a term of five years, and they declined to have any communication with the only railway company which possessed a through communication through Fife. He believed all this arose from some personal petty squabble between a certain official in the Post Office and an official connected with the North British Railway Company; but it was a very hard thing that the public should have to suffer because of such squabbles and disagreements. Counties—not that of Fife—having all advantages on the Caledonian Railway at their command, had then-letters delivered in a reasonable time. The inhabitants of Fife would be glad if the Caledonian Railway had lines of communication through Fife. But as it had not, it was hard that they should be visited with the caprice of Post Office officials, because only the North British Railway, with whom they had a quarrel, happened to have lines through Fife. They declined to have through communication with Fife on account of a paltry sum of £2,000. It was a great hardship to merchants and others that their letters from India, Australia, and America should be delivered in the way he had pointed out. It might be said that they might get their letters by certain trains. That was quite true, but it was not at the expense of the Post Office; but the manufacturers had to employ private messengers of their own. He trusted that a responsible officer connected with the Post Office might be appointed in that House, and that then we might be enabled to put an end to such a discreditable state of things as now exists.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he had always met with the greatest courtesy and kindness on the part of the Post Office officials, and he did not think the Postmaster General would allow such grievances to exist as those pointed out by the hon. Member. He did not know anything more creditable than the improvements which had of late years been effected in the management of the Post Office, and it ap- peared absolutely marvellous that between 800,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of missives of all kinds should be annually dispatched through that Department to all parts of the world. It was not a matter of wonder, then, that complaints should occasionally arise in various quarters, and they deserved the attention of the postal authorities; indeed, in his opinion they would be obliged by any information which would enable them to rectify any error or defect in the system.

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK

said, that he was ready to give the Post Office authorities credit for their good management; but it was sometimes found that it was very difficult to obtain information from that Department, and that difficulty seemed to arise from the absence of any active person at its head. He thought there should be some responsible head to whom complaints might be addressed. It was all very well to speak of the Postmaster General, but lie was a myth; nobody knew where to find him.

SIR JERVOISE JERVOISE

said, he understood the Under Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) to state that it would be rather objectionable to have the representative of the Post Office in that House, inasmuch as the Post Office was a revenue department, He felt bound to express his dissent from that view of the matter. When the penny postal system was introduced it was stated that the Government ought to carry the letters for a penny each, because this could be accomplished by a private company; and it was then clearly understood that the Government were not to make any profit out of the enterprize. He held that the Post Office could not be taken as a legitimate revenue department.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he thought it was desirable that there should be no misunderstanding upon one point. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Childers) did not intend to convey to the House that, because the Post Office was a revenue department, therefore it was improper that the representative of it should sit in the House of Commons. He understood that the Bill which had been brought in by the hon. Gentleman opposite was not for the purpose of laying down, by implication or otherwise, any rule that the Postmaster General should sit in either that House or the House of Lords. He understood the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Darby Griffith) to be, that the present limitation of the office was an unnecessary limitation, and that it prevented the operation of that discretion which in certain cases might be beneficially exercised. He would certainly be the last man to assert that, because the department was a revenue department, the representative of it should not sit in that House. On the contrary, if it were to be considered as a revenue department, that would rather indicate the propriety of its representative sitting in the House of Commons. It was always to be recollected that the Post Office, besides being a revenue department had another character. There were certain arrangements in it which were of a nature to which there was no analogy whatever in other revenue departments. In the first place, large transactions took place with regard to packet contracts. Then international questions arose in connection with the administration of the Post Office, and the conclusion of treaties with foreign countries. Indeed, there were functions to be discharged which went far beyond anything connected with what was generally understood as a revenue department. He had understood his hon. Friend (Sir Jervoise Jervoise) to say that the Post Office was not a revenue department, ad consequently the State ought not to derive any revenue from it. He was not sure that his hon. Friend held that doctrine; but on every occasion on which it was advanced he felt it was his duty to protest against it. The money the State obtained was for the performance of a service for the public at a cheaper rate and in a better manner than any individual could do it; and the surplus stood in the place of what would have to be raised by taxes. But that was not all; it was to be recollected that money raised by taxes was generally money which it would be desirable not to raise if it could be dispensed with. There were few taxes that were not attended with a great deal of evil and mischief. Consequently, if, always keeping up the efficiency of the service, the Government, while it was conferring an advantage on the public, could make a profit by the performance of what nobody else could do, it was a profit which was well made, and, referring to an ancient story, it was a profit which "smelt sweet in the nostrils" compared with the produce of the general taxes.

Bill read a second time and committed for Friday.