HC Deb 14 September 1886 vol 309 cc329-31
MR. J. G. HUBBARD (London)

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whe- ther his attention has been drawn to a robbery of Her Majesty's mails, reported to have taken place between London and Dover, on the night between the 8th and 9th of April 1886; whether, for a month previous to the robbery, the bags of letters destined to the Continent, or some of them, were forwarded from London to Dover in an ordinary unprotected truck, not intended for mail purposes, which had been pressed into the service temporarily, and had neither lock upon it nor guard within it; whether the judge who tried a man convicted of feloniously receiving a portion of the property stolen from these bags, expressed his amazement at the little care taken of them by the Post Office authorities; whether any attempt has been made, and with what result, to ascertain who was responsible for this apparent carelessness, and to ensure that there shall be no repetition of it; whether the Government will consider the propriety of paying some compensation for losses resulting from what appears to be a gross case of negligence on the part of the Post Office; whether the position of the Railway Company in regard to this loss has been investigated, and whether the Company was bound by the terms of its contract with Government to provide secure and proper carriages for the transmission of the mails; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will allow a Copy of the Contract with the Railway Company to be produced?

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)

As the matter referred to concerns the Post Office, I have been requested by my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer the Question of my right hon. Friend. The circumstances connected with this robbery were very clearly elicited at the time of the trial of Henry Andrews, who was convicted on the 4th June last, and sentenced to eight years' penal servitude. The report of the trial is given in The Times of the 5th of June, and the facts stated in the Question are substantially correct. The whole subject of the arrangements made by the Post Office for the transit of the mails in the past, and for their safety in the future, was, together with the responsibility of the officer in charge of the branch, carefully considered by my Predecessor; and steps have been taken to prevent the repetition of such occurrences as took place during the repair of the mail van. The position of the South Eastern Railway Company has also been looked into, and Lord Wolverton satisfied himself that it would not be practicable to fix that Company with the responsibility for this most unfortunate transaction. As regards the question of compensation, this matter was also examined by my Predecessor, who came to the conclusion that beyond giving compensation to the extent provided under the regulations respecting registered letters it was impossible to make good further losses.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

I beg to ask my noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider the question of compensation for at least part of the losses incurred through the official misconduct of the Post Office, which has a monopoly from the State, and out of which it makes a considerable profit?

THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

Of course, I shall be glad to give a very careful consideration to any facts which my right hon. Friend may think it his duty to lay before me. But he must not suppose that I pledge myself to anything he may recommend, seeing that I may not be able to take the same view with regard to compensation as my right hon. Friend My impression is, that the immunity of the Crown in respect to such losses as these, which occur in the carriage of mails, is almost absolute.