§ MR. HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)asked the Secretary to the Trea- 1625 sury, Whether it is a fact, as stated by the Postmaster General's Secretary, in a reply to a Memorial from Bristol, that—
In consequence of the enormous increase which has taken place in the number of telegrams which have been insufficiently addressed, it has been found necessary to discontinue the practice formerly adopted of referring to directories in order to supplement these insufficient addresses,and that—Their delivery is now as a rule effected only in the event of their falling into the hands of telegraphists or messengers who know the precise address of the persons for whom they are intended;and, if so, whether, in view of the great public inconvenience caused by this state of things, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend any modification of the recent Act of Parliament which provides that addresses must be paid for?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)The Postmaster General informs me that the facts are as stated by the hon. Member; but there was also in the letter to the Memorialists a paragraph to the effect of the reply recently given in this House to the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire (Mr. Forwood), that where a sender had evidently done his best to give a full address the Department would do what it could to secure the delivery of the telegram. As to any modification of the Act of Parliament, no modification would be acceptable which did not reduce the charge at present paid for telegrams; and as the average sum now paid for a telegram is only 8d., as compared with a payment of 1s. 1d. under the old tariff, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to recommend any change in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. The remedy for the inconvenience complained of by the hon. Member is entirely in the hands of the senders of telegrams, who by paying for one or two extra words could make the addresses sufficient.