§ (15.) £806,258, to complete the sum for Customs, agreed to.
§ (16.) £1,582,125, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked whether any new system had been adopted of collecting Income Tax, for there was a large increase in the poundage?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied that the poundage was paid, as before, on the amount collected; but as the Income Tax was now 5d., of course the poundage had increased.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHobserved, that that did not explain the increase, which was very considerable. It was not possible in that way to understand how it had gone up from £26,000 for 3d. to £70,000 for 5d.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONanswered, that there was no difference made in the payment of collectors. The Estimate was based on the grant of last year. He had made every inquiry into the matter at the time, because it struck him that there was a very large increase in the poundage; and he was assured by the officer of the Inland Revenue Office in charge of the matter that the amount of the increase was due to this cause.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, surely that would not explain an increase from £26,000 to £70,000.
§ MR. WHITWELLobserved, that there was also a very large increase in the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,806,825, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue.
§ MR. GRAYwished to know whether it was the system to confiscate savings that had been deposited in two accounts by some persons? He believed the Post Office Savings Banks realized some small profit; and, therefore, there was no excuse for dealing harshly with depositors, who were, of course, for the most part, 1616 of the poorest class, and were probably not aware of the various regulations under which the Department existed. He had put the question in reference to a case which had been mentioned to him before; but he would now ask something about the matter, not having anticipated that this Vote would give it so soon. He wished to know whether, if a depositor violated the rule that two accounts should not be opened by one person, whether the Post Office had the power to confiscate all his savings? The case which had been brought to his knowledge was that of a farm labourer, who had deposited with the Post Office the savings of a life's labour, amounting to about £100. Part of the money was deposited in his own town, and the other at another, some few miles off. After his death his relatives attempted to take some of it out, in order to pay the expenses of his funeral, and then the Department discovered that he had kept two accounts. According to his information, the money was absolutely confiscated; and on an appeal being made to the Treasury, the reply was that they should allow matters to take their course. If his information were correct, the Government had confiscated the entire savings of this poor man, and left his family without any means of subsistence. The noble Lord would be able to tell them, at any rate, whether this system existed, even if he were not acquainted with the facts of this particular case; and, if it did—which he could scarcely believe—the Government would certainly find their labours in Ireland very much lightened.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that the law was very much as the hon. Gentleman had stated, and, of course, his Department was bound to obey the law. The case was brought under his notice by two hon. Members from Ireland not very long since, and he then found that the matter had occurred more than a year ago. The procedure was as follows:—The Solicitor to the Treasury had his attention called to it, and was asked to express his opinion on it in writing. If he reported that these double accounts were opened in error, then the money was not confiscated, but returned. If the Solicitor stated that, in his opinion, there was fraud-in the transaction, then the law took its course. Two hon. Gentlemen, one the hon. 1617 Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery), had called about the case. They had been referred to the Treasury, and, he apprehended, it was now undergoing inquiry.
§ MR. GRAYbegged to move that the Vote be reduced by £100. What was the fraud for which this money was confiscated? The Government took deposits from poor people, giving them only a low rate of interest—2½ per cent—and then invested the money they received at a much higher rate, principally lending it to local bodies, and making 3½ and 4 per cent. By these means, after paying all the costs of management, they made a considerable profit from the business. What, then, was the conceivable amount of fraud that this man had perpetrated by opening two accounts? He had simply induced the Post Office to take a little more money than they otherwise would have had, and so they made a little more profit. Was that a sufficient justification for making a charge of fraud? He could not bring himself to use the word. They might call it a trick or a subterfuge, in order to get a greater amount deposited than the Government accepted. Was that conduct sufficient to justify the confiscation of the entire capital sum? The bare statement of facts needed no elaboration from him. He thought they were simply appalling. The expression used would be applied by the people of Ireland, not to the depositor who had lost his money, but to the persons who had taken it from him. He would certainly take the opinion of the Committee on the subject.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,806,725, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post office Revenue."—(Mr. Gray.)
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman hardly understood the statement of the noble Lord in answer to his question. There was no power in the Department to do anything of this kind. It was simply a question of carrying out an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament sanctioned the Post Office Savings Banks, 1618 in order, he supposed, to prevent interference with the ordinary banks of the country, and limited deposits to a certain sum. Under that Act, any attempt to open two accounts in the same name was considered a fraudulent transaction, and rendered the account liable to be confiscated. If this were proved to be a fraudulent transaction, forfeiture was necessary also, for otherwise persons might have a great many accounts open in different Post Offices, and give great trouble. If any alteration was required, it must be by means of a new Savings Banks' Bill, allowing an increase in the amount deposited.
§ MR. GRAYreplied, that he did not misunderstand at all. He did not state that the Department had power to make restitution of this money, because, as to that, he accepted the explanation of the noble Lord. What he did state was that the Government, as represented by this Department, had confiscated the money, and that he represented as grievously unjust. The Treasury had power to return this money, and they did not exercise it. It was not with reference to a particular case, the details of which he had not been able fully to bring before the House, and which the noble Lord had not had time to examine, that he intended to move this reduction, but as a protest against the whole system. The opening of an account might be a fraud technically, and according to an Act of Parliament; but, he contended, it was a fraud in no sense of depriving a person of money, and he contended it was not a fraud deserving of anything like the punishment meted out. He would, therefore, take the earliest possible opportunity of taking the opinion of the Committee on the general question of whether such a policy was desirable. He was positive the people of Ireland did not know they could be treated in this way; and he was sure the Government would find very little difficulty in dealing with the Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland in the future, in consequence of a considerable reduction in the number of deposits. Yet so strongly did he feel on the subject, that he certainly would raise the question in a more formal shape on another occasion.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the law was that when a depositor opened an account at the bank all these rules were 1619 made known to him. If he was illiterate, it was incumbent on the Postmaster to read and explain to him the rules. He had no reason to believe that this was not done in the present case, but, on the contrary, he had reason to believe that it was; therefore, he thought that, even when this case became known, the people generally would not follow the course suggested by the hon. Member, because the rules and regulations which now existed had been enforced ever since the Savings Bank was founded, and until this particular case he had never heard any complaint.
§ MR. MELDONthought it was very much to be deprecated that the noble Lord opposite and the Secretary to the Treasury should thus brand a dead man with fraud. He was amazed to hear the noble Lord opposite state that the Solicitor to the Treasury had branded this case as fraudulent. He would challenge either the noble Lord or the Secretary to the Treasury to show how such a statement could be defended, and to point out where the fraud was. There was no such thing as a fraud in this case. The man might have acted in contravention of the Act of Parliament; and it might be necessary, for the public good, to act harshly in a special case, taken expressly for the purpose, and not interfering with the existing business of the Banks and Institutions. If a man chose to make deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks all over Ireland, he could quite understand that serious mischief might arise, and that the infliction of a fine might become necessary. Was a poor unfortunate man like this—a farm-labourer—to have the whole of his life-long savings forfeited without the slightest reason or necessity? They were told that it was the invariable practice to refer these matters to the Solicitor to the Treasury, to report whether an action was fraudulent or not, and if he reported that it was, these monies were confiscated. Such a thing as this ought to be known to the country, and it would most certainly bring the Post Office Savings Banks into disrepute. He could quite understand when there were duplicate accounts they might fairly refuse to pay interest on the second; but, under the circumstances stated by the noble Lord and the Secretary to the Treasury, to brand the conduct of the deceased man as fraudulent, and to for- 1620 feit the entire property of his family, he had no hesitation in declaring to be a scandal.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must indignantly protest against such language. An Act of Parliament had been passed. That Act limited the amount any particular depositor should be allowed to deposit; and it stated that if a person deposited more than that in another account—that was, if the fraudulent intention was proved—the amount should be forfeited. That was done in order to prevent what had been referred to. He did not wish to enter into this particular case, because he did not know the facts; but he could answer for it that it had been gone into most carefully by the Solicitor to the Treasury. That gentleman always inquired most carefully into the circumstances to see whether the depositor, having got one deposit, had taken out another with full knowledge of the rule; and if he considered the fraudulent intention proved, he could only follow the Act of Parliament. The only difficulty was as to the fraudulent intention or not. But he ventured to say all cases were so construed. He, in his office of Secretary to the Treasury, only acted with a view to carrying out the Act of Parliament; and he did not see how any Government could be carried on if its actions in carrying out an Act were to be called a scandal.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, there must be some impression on the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury or the Postmaster General. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that this money was confiscated under the Act of Parliament, while the Postmaster General put forward the justification of some rules, in very small print, attached to the book which was handed to the depositors. What was fraud? Surely it was taking, by some device or misrepresentation, money that could not be otherwise obtained. That was the ordinary sense and meaning of the word in the ordinary moral sense, though not, perhaps, in the legal sense. He thought the whole thing was a scandal; and, as a man of the world, he would repeat it certainly was a scandal.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONI rise to Order.
§ MR. CALLANIf the Secretary to the Treasury wished to make any remarks he could do so after he (Mr. 1621 Callan) had sat down. He certainly should not give way. Such conduct was a scandal to any public Department. This money had got into the insatiable maw of the Treasury, which never disgorged anything it had received; and in order to meet the great expenditure of the Zulu War and the Afghan Campaign, they were ready to gather money in every way that was justified by law—he was going to say by honour. As to this case—here was a poor, illiterate agricultural labourer, who, not having been accustomed to large sums of money, did not bank at the Bank of England or Ireland, but took his little savings to the Post Office. The Act of Parliament did not say that if a man lodged two different sums in that bank, under different names, it should be confiscated; but if he lodged it in the same name, it was left to the Solicitor to the Treasury to say whether he were guilty of fraud or not. Surely the House was as capable of judging of fraud as the Solicitor to the Treasury. They were told that if a man lodged the money ignorantly it would not even be a legal fraud; and he should certainly suppose this labourer did deposit his money ignorantly. Only very recently the Master of the Rolls in Ireland had denounced a bill of sale as a scandal, as a disgrace, and as an act which should be censured and put down by the strong arm of the law, because the conditions were printed on it in small print, not easily read by those who ran. Surely he would use much stronger language with regard to this action on the part of the Government. They had not the slightest proof that these rules were read, or that the Postmaster explained them. He hoped his hon. Friend would have met in some other spirit this mere puerile allegation of fraud; and that, sooner than proceed in this way, the Postmaster General and the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to refer the whole question to the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, in order that this matter might be inquired into, and the money returned to this unfortunate man. It would smooth matters, and would not put them to the expense of a 20 minutes' Division, with the probability of a very angry discussion afterwards.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not paid sufficient attention to what he had said. The hon. 1622 Members for the county and the borough of Wexford had brought this case before him some little time ago; and, having looked into it, he found that it had passed out of his control to that of the Treasury. He, therefore, advised the hon. Member to go to the Treasury and see if the case could be re-opened. He had not heard from either of the hon. Gentlemen since, and, therefore, did not know what the result was. He thought, however, it would be better to leave the case in the hands of those who had originally taken it up.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the case came from his own county of Tipperary; and, therefore, it appeared as if this process of confiscation was general. The Post Office, it appeared, made considerable profit out of the Savings Banks, amounting in all to £20,000 a-year; but he had some hesitation in challenging this Vote by moving a reduction, because it might be thought he was taking a Division on the merits of this particular case, and he did not wish that should be so. He had not yet had an opportunity of going fully into the case, but perhaps the Chief Secretary might consider the matter; and, therefore, he thought it better and fairer to the Committee to withdraw the Amendment he had moved. Either on Report, or some distinct Motion, he would generally raise the question of whether it was advisable to enforce these terrible punishments.
§ MR. COURTNEYobserved, that even in looking through the Act he did not find any powers there to confiscate money in this way. Probably, therefore, this act had been done under some rules framed in pursuance of the Act, and laid before Parliament in the ordinary way. He did not rise to continue the discussion on that point, for it seemed to him to be a matter which should be discussed at another time in the day. He did desire, however, to call the attention of the Committee to the organization of this Department, which seemed to him to be most cumbrous and expensive. [" Order, Order! "] He was going to move to report Progress.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that, as the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) has asked permission to withdraw his Amendment, that it would be more convenient to have that withdrawn, and then to enter on this discussion. The hon. 1623 Member was probably under the impression that the Amendment had been withdrawn.
§ MR. COURTNEYreplied that, in his opinion, it would be more convenient to report Progress before leaving the Amendment before the House. It was impossible to discuss the question of the organization of the Post Office at that time in the night; but he thought hon. Members present would be surprised to learn that the cost of every single transaction was over 8d. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: A little under 8d.] If the noble Lord would look at page 27 of his own Report, he would find a statement there that the average cost to the Post Office of every deposit withdrawn was, in the year 1877, 8 1/10d.; so that it was over 8d. for the whole period. It had been 6⅓d., and there was an explanation why the charge had been increased.
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Tipperary has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. It is in accordance with the practice of the Committee to speak only to that Amendment, until the Question is decided. When it is withdrawn, he will be in Order to make his observations.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. COURTNEYdid not propose to enter into any discussion, and only wished to point out why they ought to report Progress. It seemed to him too absurd that the cost of each transaction should be 8 1/10d. If ordinary banks had to pay that, they could never carry on business. He wished to point out how that might be reduced, and also how the operations of the banks might be extended so that they might be established wherever Money Order Offices existed. He begged to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Courtney.)
§ MR. MELDONdid not wish to interpose in this discussion; but he did wish to protest against the language made use of by the Secretary to the Treasury on the conduct described by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. The 1624 Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the person making the two deposits as acting fraudulently, and as showing a fraudulent intention. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] He understood the hon. Gentleman to say so, and he was only too glad if he would disclaim the intention. He challenged him and the Postmaster General to point out how such conduct could be fraudulent. The Act of Parliament even did not give power to confiscate this money, and there ought, certainly, to be no declaration that conduct of this kind was fraudulent merely upon rules framed by the Post Office. He challenged the hon. Gentleman to prove this language; and when this Vote came on again he hoped they would have some explanation of such a charge.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, on condition that this Vote was postponed. He was very anxious to get on with the other Votes, in order to include specifically the Votes of Supply. He would not enter further into the dispute as to whether he did or did not use the words imputed to him. What he intended to convey was, that an Act of Parliament having laid down certain conditions, an attempt, with a knowledge of that Act of Parliament, to frustrate those conditions, was a fraud on the Act of Parliament.
§ MR. COURTNEYhad no objection, on this decision, to withdraw his proposal.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (17.) £574,725, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service, agreed to.
§
(18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £834,528, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major O'Beirne.)
§ MR. GRAYwished to direct the attention of the Government to a subject he 1625 had already brought under their notice—namely, the discontent which existed in the Dublin Offices amongst the Post Office clerks at the injustice to which they were subjected in the matter of salaries. They had already called attention last year to this matter by Memorial, and he then pointed out that it was never forwarded to London until he called attention to the matter. He saw by the newspapers that in the last two or three days the Post Office clerks in Dublin had met to consider their grievances, and it was then stated that a second Memorial had been addressed to the noble Lord, which had not elicited any reply. The noble Lord promised him last year that the matter should have his careful attention, but no relief had yet been accorded. The complaint was that the work in Dublin was just as hard, and required as skilled manipulation, as any city in the Empire; a statement which he could testify from his own knowledge, having had some experience of the amount of work done, in a very limited time, and which was paid on a lower scale, not merely than in London, but in other towns, such as was paid to the clerks in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, and all the principal provincial towns of England and Scotland. These clerks had the same work as the clerks in London, and must be their equals in skill; for, of course, in transmitting messages, if they did not have as good a clerk at one end as at the other, they lost the advantages of the skill of the first. He found that second-class clerks in London began at £200, rising to £300; while second-class clerks in Dublin began at £90, rising to £300; while clerks in the fourth class in London began at a higher rate than the second-class clerks in Dublin. There was another matter to which he might call attention, which the clerks thought might injure them, or be to their detriment. Recently, their names had been changed by a Circular from "telegraph clerks" to "telegraphists." An Act of Parliament provided for the superannuation and pensions stipulated for when the telegraphs were transferred; and these clerks feared that the Circular changing their name was intended to deprive them of some benefit which they would have secured under the Act. The men complained, also, that they had an enormous 1626 deal of extra work on Sundays, and that they were kept continuously at work long over hours. Of course, they were paid extra for that; but the work was more than they were physically able to perform, and the extra pay did not compensate for the loss of health contingent on the work. He trusted this matter would not require very much more consideration from the noble Lord, and that he would do something like justice to these clerks; and he trusted, also, that the agitation of these men would not bring on them any kind of punishment, of which they stood in considerable dread.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would readily give the last assurance asked for by the hon. Member. With respect to the general status of these clerks, the principle he wished to lay down, speaking generally, was that the clerks in Dublin should be on the same footing as those in Edinburgh. The capital was always regarded as different to other places. He would communicate to the hon. Member, as soon as possible, the result of his inquiries, and of certain communications which were now passing between the Treasury and himself on this matter.
§ MR. M. BROOKSasked, if the rates in Edinburgh at present were greater than those in Dublin? He knew the wages paid were some 40 or 50 per cent below those paid in London; and if the clerks did not get a rise, it would be very poor consolation to them that they got the same as was paid at Liverpool and Manchester. He should be very glad to hear the noble Lord say that they should be put on a level with the men in London.
§ MR. DILLWYNthought it was a very odd principle to pay clerks according to the place where they were working. They surely ought to pay according to the efficiency of their work.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.