§ MR. H. B. SAMUELSONcalled attention to the position of certain letter carriers and messengers, and urged that the pay and allowances of all such 1734 public servants ought to be based on an equitable scale. His clients, he remarked, were a very numerous body, and their demands were so reasonable, so just, and so small, that while the concession of them would confer a boon upon the men, they would necessitate but an inappreciable claim upon the public purse. Those whose cause he pleaded desired that equal labour should receive equal remuneration, and that letter carriers and messengers should no longer be an exception to the rule which obtained in connection with other employments—namely, that an increase of work and length of service meant an increase of pay.
§ MR. FRENCHsupported the observations of the hon. Member for Frome.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, no one had more sympathy with the position of the letter carriers than he had; but the proposition of the hon. Member was impossible. There were 22,000 persons in the employment of the Post Office as letter carriers; some were employed the whole day, some only during the portion of the day; some of them had to walk long distances, while some had less duty to do in that respect. Such being the case, it would be impossible to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member. He was not aware of any great hardships in the Service. If any case did occur, he would take care that it should be inquired into at once.
§ Sir CHARLES W. DILKEwished to have some explanation of the terrorism exercised over the employés.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not know that any such thing existed.
§ MR. EARPput in a plea for better clothing for the men. They should have waterproofs in wet weather.
MR. MACGREGGORwas glad to hear that there was no terrorism in the Service, and he hoped that, if hereafter a postman petitioned that House, or communicated with a Member of that House, he should not be dismissed for doing so.
§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had known of instances of terrorism, and wondered how they had escaped the attention of the noble Lord.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord must either be unfit for his office, or else he was stating to the House that which was not the fact. ["Order, order!"] 1735 He did not mean to accuse the noble Lord of wilful falsehood; but any person who stated that terrorism did not exist in the Service must be incompetent to fulfil the duties for which the noble Lord received several thousands a-year.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Committee deferred till Wednesday.