REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 17 December 1888)

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
said, he was aware his hon. Friend the Member for South Islington (Sir Albert Rollit) desired to raise a question on this Vote. He was afraid it would occupy some time, and he would not now express any opinion upon it. He would appeal to the hon. Member whether, for the convenience of Members generally, he would accept the suggestion to postpone the discussion until next Session?

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said, the matter he was going to bring forward was of serious importance to shipowners and the public. After the appeal made, and considering the time of the Session, he could not do otherwise than accept the suggestion.

§ MR. NEVILLE (Liverpool, Exchange)
said, there was one question he had to raise which had reference to the employment of officers of Customs at the Port of Liverpool. The duty of men of that class, formerly known as "tide waiters," was to watch on board ships to prevent the putting of contraband goods over the side. These men, he was credibly informed, were on duty 18 hours out of the 24, and had no fixed hour for meals, nor was there proper sleeping accommodation provided for the short time they had for that purpose. He put a Question the other day, and received from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the answer that the duty of the men consisted in being present to prevent contraband goods being put over the side of the ship; that it involved no hard labour, and that it rarely happened that a man was more than three days on one ship; and that no officer was required to be on duty more than 18 hours on an average. He was given to understand, however, that men had been sometimes seven days on a ship and no provision 594 made for shelter, no matter what the weather might be. That was a kind of servitude to which no officer ought to be subjected. He did not wish to raise a discussion, but simply to ask the hon. Gentleman to cause an investigation to be made, and he would find that the hours of employment demanded from the officers at Liverpool were excessive. He was informed that the amount of sick leave granted to these 30 men exceeded the whole amount granted to all the other Custom House officers. This was an indication of the evils of the system, and he hoped that, when again this Vote came on, the Government would be able to say that something had been done to alter these arrangements.

§ MR. J. SINCLAIR (Ayr, &c.)
asked, whether the arrangements as to hours adopted in some quarters, such as Liverpool and London, in a tentative manner, would be applied generally to the whole of the ports of the Kingdom?

§ MR. JACKSON
said, the last question had reference to a wholly different matter than that raised by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool. The request made was reasonable; he would undertake, by investigation, to satisfy himself on the matter, and make a statement when the Estimate came on again next year. It was true the men had long hours of duty, and it was almost in the nature of the duty that it should be so.

§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said, he had received similar representations in reference to the duty of these officers at Hull. He hoped inquiry would include their case.

§ COLONEL HAMILTON (Southwark, Rotherhithe)
said, he had been given to understand that officers on the Thames at Victoria Dock had been on duty for 24 hours continuously.

§ MR. JACKSON
said, there had been no alteration, so far as London was concerned, in the hours that had prevailed for some time. Possibly the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to officers whose duties were analogous to those who were called boarding officers at Liverpool. It might have been possible, and long hours were a necessity of the service, but the whole subject should be considered.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
said, one grievance awakened 595 recollection of others, and even at Holyhead in connection with the mail boat service officers were kept out for long hours in all weathers. True, there was not the expectation of doing anything, but he could not see why there should not be relief at shorter intervals than 18 hours.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
said, he wished to refer to the question of poundage paid to collectors of Income Tax, and the promise made three years ago to do away with it. The amount had, however, much increased this year.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, most Members of the Committee were aware that no poundage was paid to any Government officer; they were local assessors and local collectors who were paid by poundage. The Government had no such system, and had made several efforts to change the local system, but had always been met with considerable opposition in the House when the attempt was made. The Government had not had time to deal with the subject last year. It was a matter that deserved serious attention. The system gave rise to a great deal of irritation on the part of those who paid taxes, and he would be glad to see it abolished.

§ MR. LAWSON (St. Pancras, W.)
said, he desired to draw attention to two or three points in reference to the postmen. In many respects their position was a hard one, and he did not suppose any hon. Member grudged the usual Christmas box it was the universal custom to bestow on this class of public servants. In many districts these men had to work 16 hours on end, carrying heavy weights too, heavier than were contemplated before the introduction of the Parcel Post. Why had the Postmaster General singled out this particular class for treatment different to the rest of the Civil Service? Why had they been prevented from associating together for purposes of mutual benefit and for bringing their grievances before the public; why, also, had they been prevented from meeting and ventilating 596 what they considered their just claims against the Department? Were the rule applied throughout the Civil Service he would not complain. The tendency of Trades Unionism might be good or bad from a Departmental point of view, and probably was bad from the economical point of view; but when other Civil servants were allowed to combine, postmen were prevented by indirect but practical measures directed against their members, preventing even combination for purposes of thrift. Next, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to take in hand and re-model the Postal District Divisions, so that postmen should never be on duty more than 12 hours, or more than eight hours continuously. There were instances in the South Eastern District where men had been engaged for 16 hours at a stretch. The arrangement of districts and sub-districts in London was absurdly anachronistic. Old divisions were kept up that were no longer applicable to the altered circumstances, and many so-called suburban districts were integral parts of the Metropolis. Into this question and others he avoided entering at length, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would answer these questions. The Committee must admit, although there were occasional scandals, the postmen were one of the most industrious bodies of men in the Public Service, and deserved well of the public.

§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)
said, he would endeavour to imitate the brevity with which the hon. Member had raised these questions. As to the instance in which a man had been on duty 16 hours at a stretch, he agreed that it was more than any man should be called upon to perform, and if the hon. Member would furnish him with particulars he would cause inquiry to be made. It was not always possible to increase the force of men at short notice or to carry out reforms at once, but he had taken steps to put an end to long hours of duty in more than one district. As to the question of the weight the men had to carry, there, also, he was in sympathy with the hon. Member. Although no man was allowed to carry more than 36 lbs, no doubt, when that arrangement was made, it was not contemplated that on any but rare occasions 597 a man would have to carry so much. The introduction of the Parcel Post, however, had made a change in this respect. In any case where the weight exceeded that figure a man was always given assistance. Here, also, if there was any instance in which, except under times of great pressure, a man had to carry excessive weight exceeding the Regulations, it should at once be made the subject of inquiry and alteration. As to the association of postmen for the purpose of mutual benefit, so far from there being any rule against it, such meetings continually took place, and only last week there was a meeting of the Lower Division clerks in the Savings Bank Department to consider certain proposals made by the Controller of that Department, and with the consent of the Authorities meetings were sometimes allowed within the walls of official buildings. But, no doubt, there was a rule laid down by Lord Stanley of Alderley, when he was Postmaster General in 1866, a rule which had been embodied in the general Regulations that public meetings for the purpose of agitation should not be held. The hon. Member, doubtless, had in mind the action taken in regard to Mr. Dredge. In 1887 this man was reduced from the first to the second class for writing to the Press on official matters, in contravention of rule, and for attempting to promote an agitation. At that time it became a question for him (Mr. Raikes) to decide whether this was a case to be met with dismissal from the Service, and he preferred to take the more lenient course of reduction to a lower class. This reduction was accompanied by a caution, but in the course of the present year a notice was issued and signed by Dredge, calling a mass meeting of Post Office employés at the Memorial Hall, Farringdon Road, and this was indirect contravention of Rule 42 of the Regulations. This meeting he (Mr. Raikes) prohibited, and a few days later Dredge called a general committee meeting for the purpose of discussing matters of Departmental control, and since then, though being called upon for explanation, and being emphatically cautioned, he had persistently endeavoured to stir up agitation, and he (Mr. Raikes) had felt it his duty to direct his dismissal. The Committee would agree that if discipline was to be maintained among a 598 large body of public servants, when a man persistently put himself forward as a leader of agitation after repeated warnings it was necessary, however painful it might be to do so, to dispense with the services of such a servant.

§ MR. LAWSON
said, he had avoided entering into this case, respecting the time of the Committee, but he might say that there was a different aspect to it. It might also not be out of place to inquire why in this case such a very different treatment was meted out to that which was adopted towards Sir Charles Warren, who in a similar case simply had his attention drawn to the Rule, while Mr. Dredge was at once degraded?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, that Sir Charles Warren was not under his orders. In the case of Dredge, his attention was drawn to the Rule, and he was not dismissed under that Rule.

§ MR. LAWSON
He was degraded.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he only desired to give information, and that was his only reason for referring to this case. He could assure the hon. Member that when meetings were proposed to be held among employés for purposes of thrift or mutual benefit the Authorities were extremely glad, and gave every facility for such meetings; in fact, the leading officials had often taken part in such meetings, and directed proceedings in reference to the various charitable and beneficial associations that existed among men in the Post Office Service. As to hours of duty, his desire was that they should never exceed 12, and that the working hours should never exceed eight. On the question of re-adjustment of Postal Districts he would not now enter; but he quite agreed that in many districts the divisions had become obsolete, conditions having changed from the time when they were fixed. The time had come for re-adjustment, and, as soon as he could, he would get a comprehensive and complete scheme drawn up. He was glad to join with the hon. Member in bearing testimony on the great services rendered by postmen as a class; their industry, attention, and civility conferred great benefit on the public, and the valuable addition to their salaries made in the shape of Christmas boxes was a practical recognition by the public of the satisfactory way in which these public servants did their work.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
said, he would postpone until next Session reference to the Report of the Commission on Sunday Postal Labour, and the only point he would now raise was in relation to the age of ship surgeons on mail steamers. On what grounds did the Post Office in their contracts with the Peninsular and Oriental, the Orient, and other lines of mail steamers, insist that the surgeon in attendance should be not younger than 23, and not over 30 years of age? The inconvenience of this arrangement had been felt in the Orient. He suggested a medical man for appointment on that line, an M.D. of London, Member of the College of Physicians, an able man in all respects, but yet he could not receive the appointment because he happened to be over 30 years of age. This gentleman was senior assistant at Charing Cross Hospital, and he wanted to take a voyage for the benefit of his health. Why should this limit of age be insisted upon? He could understand why it was desirable not to have a very young man, and, therefore, there could be no objection to the age of 23, but surely a medical man was not disqualified from practice at 30? Why was this stupid condition adhered to?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he was much obliged to the hon. Member for deferring the Sunday question, which was rather a large one. As to the other question, he did not know that any objection had been raised to the Rule until the hon. Member himself raised it the other day. The fact was, it had always been found possible to obtain sufficient efficient surgeons between the ages of 23 and 30, and so there had never been any reason to change the Rule, and there had been no complaint of it from the Mail Companies. The Orient line had only recently come into the contracts and become sensible of the Rule, and he could not see his way to make an exception to the Rule in this case. He would cause inquiry to be made into the reasons that supported the Rule, and if there were any reasons for changing it. He could not promise to make the change without sufficient grounds.

§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
said, in justice to persons employed by the Post Office, and who had intrusted him with the ventilation of 600 their grievances, he explained that he could not do justice to their case now, and, therefore, he postponed the duty to next Session.

§ SIR JOHN PULESTON (Devonport)
asked, if any effect had been given to the recommendation of the Commission for shortening the hours of service; and had there been any difficulty in getting men to volunteer for extra duty?

§ MR. LAWSON
asked, if any alteration had been made in the Savings Bank Department, where the clerks often did five hours extra work daily to the great detriment of their health?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he quite agreed that the state of the Savings Bank Department was not satisfactory. At the present time there was a press of work with which the present staff was unable to cope; and, therefore, there was more recourse to overtime than he could wish. There was great readiness among all classes to carry on the work at great sacrifice of time. An arrangement had been made in the Department, which he had reason to believe was acceptable to the men, for payment by piece work, and no doubt that would work well when applied to times of extreme pressure. Beyond doubt, however, a large addition to the Savings Bank branch was absolutely required, it was impossible to carry on the work without it. Such an addition was now under the consideration of the Treasury, and to the Treasury also he must refer his hon. Friend as to the establishment of a seven hours system; it was a matter that one Department only could not deal with. He had put his own proposals before the Treasury, and he had had the advantage of the most experienced officials in drawing up a full and exhaustive Report representing the view of the Department, and he hoped the Treasury would, when they had had time to digest the Report, arrive at a conclusion that would be satisfactory to all parties.

§ SIR JOHN PULESTON
asked if, with the additional staff, there would still be the necessity for overtime?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, there were times in the Savings Bank Department when it could not be avoided.

§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the rearrangement of deliveries, would see the 601 advantage of no longer treating Hammersmith as a suburb of Paddington.

§ THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON) (Belfast, W.)
said, he wish to ask to what extent the practice of "Grahamizing" letters was now carried out by the Post Office? Complaints had been made to the right hon. Gentleman that Members of the House only enjoyed their correspondence at second hand, the letters, when delivered, bearing evident traces of having been opened and read. He should have thought that the Government had now known Irish Members so long that their curiosity in this way would have been exhausted; but a few weeks ago, when he was in Dublin, a gentleman whose name and address he could give as a guarantee of bona fides said that to his personal knowledge a number of route bags were detained in Dublin, and a number of persons he named were engaged all night with a kettle of hot water and a variety of apparatus in opening and examining letters, some letters being detained until the departure of the next mail. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give any information as to such proceedings—his informant gave his name and expressed his readiness to substantiate his information. He (Mr. Sexton) believed that a power rested with the Home Office to detain and examine letters, but it was important to know if letters could be opened, not only by the chief officials at the Home Office, but by delegates and minor officials. He should have thought that with the facilities the Government had for private inquiry, and with the experience they had had of Irish affairs, Members' correspondence might have been respected.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, it was his anxiety to make inquiry into any statement of the kind. A complaint was made to him some months ago, through communication with an hon. Member opposite, and that hon. Member would do him the justice to say that he lost no time in investigating the matter to the best of his power, though he was disappointed at not being able to arrive at a more certain result. The gentleman to whom the right hon. Member for West Belfast referred must be under some great mistake, or else there was some person in Dublin employed in the Post Office who richly deserved to be 602 treated with the utmost rigour of the law. The right hon. Member had stated correctly that no letter in passing through the Post Office could be detained or opened except under the sanction of the Secretary of State in this country.

§ MR. SEXTON
Has he a delegate?

§ MR. RAIKES
There must be a warrant from the Secretary of State to authorize any letter being intercepted; and all he could say in reference to this statement of the right hon. Member was that certainly any person so tampering with letters had been guilty of a very grave breach of the law, and he would be extremely glad of any assistance from the right hon. Member towards the discovery of any person so guilty, and he would be prepared to deal with the case. He acknowledged the courtesy of hon. Members in communicating with him on this subject, which touched them very nearly. They believed their correspondence had been tampered with, but he hoped and believed they had been misinformed, and that injury to the fastenings of envelopes was due to accident. If there had been any attempt to violate the correspondence of Irish Members, it was an illegal act which he would at once use his power to stop and to secure the punishment of the offender.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
said, although they had no doubt whatever that letters had been tampered with, he readily accepted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this was not done with his approval. Within the last three days he received a letter which it could plainly be seen had been opened and closed again in a clumsy way. At the present time he had with him a person whom he had employed to bring a letter from his office in Tralee, because he found that previous letters had been tampered with, and this letter was so valuable, in connection with a certain inquiry now proceeding, that he dared not trust it, even though registered, to the Post Office. He did not suggest that the authorities of the Post Office, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman, would countenance such proceedings, but undoubtedly letters had been tampered with. If one only read what came out in evidence before the Commission the other day—if he were allowed this 603 reference—it would be observed that the Attorney General asked whether they knew anything of two letters addressed by the informer O'Connell to his brothers in Kerry? They did not, but they had a belief that these letters were stopped either by detectives or in the Post Office. He was not in a position to say that they actually reached the Post Office; but if he found out that it could be established in evidence that they once reached the Post Office, he should demand a searching inquiry as to how far the letters went and where they were stopped. He had no moral doubt that letters to and from Irish Members had been intercepted and opened in the Post Office, and some of them lost in the Post Office, and he charged that this was done for a certain political—vile political purpose. This was a charge under which the Authorities ought not to rest. From what the right hon. Gentleman had now said, and from what he had said previously, he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would continue to hold his post for two minutes if he found that the Executive followed this practice; but they made the charge believing it true, and it was no idle charge to direct against a Government. Letters had been delayed in delivery, and when delivered the envelopes had been found soiled at the point of closure—they had even flown open in the hand. The Irish Members could defy this prying into private correspondence—the Government might even read the letters as they were written, but it was a barbarous and antiquated policy to pursue. He dissociated himself from any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General or the Postal Authorities who acted under his directions; but he seriously made the charge that letters to and from Irish Members had been opened in transit.

§ MR. SEXTON
asked, was he to understand that, if what his informant alleged took place actually did occur, it did not occur under a Home Office warrant? Was there any warrant in force under which letters could be opened?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, the right hon. Gentleman must be satisfied with what he had said in relation to the statement he made. If anything of the kind took place it was certainly unauthorized. He repeated his statement that, to the best 604 of his belief, there had been no such case, and if there was anything of the kind it was a gross breach of the law. If any hon. Member would furnish him with any details to work upon the inquiry should be made at once, and it should be thorough.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON
said, there was the sworn evidence of O'Connell, to which more or less credence might he attached, that he posted two letters to his brothers in County Kerry. If he did so, those letters never reached their destination. Irish detectives might have seized them before they reached the Post Office. When he was at liberty to do so, he should make it his duty to fix the responsibility.

§ MR. CONYBEARE
said, he did not think the reply they had just had from the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General was so satisfactory as the first. Anyone who listened must have noticed the extremely guarded manner of the second reply; at any rate, the impression left on his mind was that there was something behind that had not transpired, but of which the right hon. Gentleman was aware. It was the duty of English Members to join in the protest of their Colleagues from the other side of the Channel. He did not wish to make any accusation against the right hon. Gentleman, but from his reply he seemed to be aware that, either here or in Ireland, there had been tampering with letters. He observed the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that. This was a matter that ought to be thoroughly explained, and it interested English Members, too, who were accustomed to write to what were considered suspected characters. It was no use pursuing the matter now, but he should look forward with interest to a further development of this curious episode, and the possibility of these transactions taking place in Ireland. Of course, if he was under a misapprehension as to the manner of the right hon. Gentleman, he should be glad to hear it; but he could not help expressing his conviction that, from the guarded manner of the right hon. Gentleman, it was evident there was something in the charge made by his hon. Friends as to tampering with letters in Ireland.

§ MR. RAIKES
said, after that, it would be well to repeat what he had said to the Committee—that if there had been 605 any tampering with letters it was a gross breach of the law, and he would do his best to discover and punish the offenders.

§ MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)
said, in his professional capacity as a journalist, he had communications with the American Press, and he happened to write a weekly letter for publication in a New York Catholic paper. As a matter of fact, out of 13 letters sent, four had gone astray. On reliable authority, he had heard that letters from Irish Members to America were often opened. He had been in communication with his correspondents in New York in reference to these four lost letters, and there could be no doubt that they had not been delivered, and it was certain they had been posted at Charing Cross. He joined in the protest of his hon. Friends, and expressed his strong belief that, by some corrupt means, subordinates in the Post Office detained letters. He only hoped that other officials would join with the right hon. Gentleman, whose generous, honourable spirit in this matter he entirely recognized, in affording protection to private and professional correspondence.

§ MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars, &c.)
said, there was a debate last year on the Postal contracts, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) took part; and in that debate the Government were asked to appoint a Select Committee at the beginning of the Session to take into consideration the whole question of how these contracts were settled. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) gave his consent, but he (Mr. Provand) did not ask for it when the Estimates came up, because at the beginning of the Session the right hon. Gentleman said so many Committees had to be appointed that the matter must be indefinitely postponed. He (Mr. Provand) had now to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) if he would promise to appoint such a Committee at the beginning of next Session, or if the right hon. Gentleman would say he would endeavour to do this he would not ask for an absolute pledge. There had 606 been precedents for such a Committee; but it was 15 or 16 years since a Committee considered this question, and since then our whole Mercantile Marine had been revolutionized, and everything in relation to mail carrying changed, far more than during any previous period. It was, therefore, all the more necessary that the whole question should be dealt with. He had expected the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) would have been present to support his request.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's, Hanover Square)
said, he was afraid he could not give the pledge the hon. Gentleman wished for.

§ MR. PROVAND
said, he would not ask for an absolute pledge, but only that the right hon. Gentleman would do his best to have such a Committee appointed.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
said, he would not make any declaration that would lead to misunderstanding. He could not undertake to hold out any decided hope to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He must take his own course. There were very few contracts running out within the year with which such a Committee could deal. Of course the Government would consider the matter, but he did not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman by any further statement.

§ MR. PROVAND
said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that before the Recess the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury promised there should be such a Committee to consider this question exhaustively.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
said, he had in relation to this Vote to complain that in the Tralee office an arbitrary transfer of all the telegraph clerks had been suddenly and carelessly made. The only reason that he could assign, after an exhaustive inquiry, was that on a certain day the magistrate in Tralee had the pleasure of sentencing him (Mr. Edward Harrington) to a month's imprisonment, and then, rushing out into the streets, ordered a baton charge by the police through Tralee. Mr. Cecil Rocho, when he had had time for reflection, felt that 607 he had somewhat endangered his position by this action, and afterwards with Colonel Turner went to the County Club. Mr. Roche was correspondent of The Dublin Daily Express, and perhaps that fact explained how it was that that journal was able to announce so long beforehand the intention to institute the prosecution against the Irish Members. Colonel Turner and Mr. Roche, the Divisional and the Resident Magistrate, went into the County Club, and there they prepared a telegram to The Dublin Express describing how stones and bottles were thrown by the mob before the police charged. In this there was not a word of truth, as any fair man in Tralee, any of the resident Englishmen there, would declare. But Colonel Turner and Mr. Roche concocted this telegram, and despatched it to the newspaper. The Dublin Express had received an account of the proceedings from their local correspondent, and this telegram was added to his report. The local correspondent protested against this, and declared that the statement was untrue and that he never sent it, and naturally wanted to discover how it was the paper fell into the mistake, feeling sure that it was not evolved out of the editorial imagination. Inquiry established the fact that Mr. Roche had sent the telegram, and the matter was exposed in the Cork papers. Then, probably, these magistrates imagined that they had been sold by the telegraphists betraying the secrets of their office. So far he proceeded on personal knowledge, and now he was going on presumption. He presumed they made some report, or caused a report to be made, and then, as a matter of fact, the whole of the telegraph staff was, in the course of a few weeks, changed from that town. They were not changed on promotion, but virtually they were changed as a punishment, and that for a fault they never committed. He could state from personal knowledge that it was not through the telegraph clerks that the exposure was brought about—the information came from the County Club. He apologized to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this question without Notice, but he did not think the Vote would be brought on so late and so suddenly. The charge in respect to letters the right hon. Gentleman had met as an English gentleman in charge of a Public Department, 608 determined that his conflict with Irish Members on political matters should not affect his duty, and here was an equally specific charge in reference to the Telegraph Department. These men had made no complaint through him, but he knew the facts—that these men had been removed from Tralee and from the friends with whom they were accustomed to associate, with no advancement in their pay to meet the necessary expenses, and—though he admitted this was only a presumption on his part—because Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner had chosen to report them to the Authorities as having disclosed the authorship of this telegram. What he had to ask was that transactions of this kind should not be allowed to occur in future, but that any charge made against an official should not be acted upon until it had been fully examined and that considerations of political partizanship should be eliminated from all such questions.

§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)
said, he certainly was ready to give the assurance the hon. Gentleman asked for, that the question of political partizanship should be kept out of matters relating to the Department. The clerks at Tralee to whom the hon. Member referred, three in number, were transferred to Limerick and elsewhere in the South of Ireland in the interest of the Department. Whenever an official was punished, or there was any question of his being punished, he was invariably called upon for an explanation in respect to the conduct complained of; but when an officer was transferred, not as a punishment, but in the interest of the Department, there was no explanation to call for, for there was nothing alleged against him. It was the opinion of the Telegraph Authorities in that part of Ireland that these young men were likely to be more useful in the Service of the State if they were employed in other offices than Tralee, and, therefore, they were transferred. He had never heard before of the statement with regard to Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner, but he would be very glad to inquire if there had been any complaint to the Postal Authorities from these magistrates; certainly, if there had been, it had never come to his knowledge. There had not 609 been any charge made against, any of the clerks in the Tralee office, and if there had been any charge he should certainly have given them the opportunity of explanation. In a complicated Department, such as the Telegraph Service, various questions arose as to the suitability of men for particular offices. On the judgment of the Post Office Authorities in Ireland it was deemed expedient to employ these clerks elsewhere, and, that being so, he had sanctioned their transfer to offices where their prospects of promotion were as good as in any other office.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON
said, he thought he might draw attention to one fact—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had displayed a great deal of knowledge of the circumstances at very short notice. Tralee was but a town with less than 10,000 inhabitants, and, considering the wide area of his adminstration, it must have struck the Committee with astonishment that upon such a question of detail, upon which he had given no Notice, the right hon. Gentleman exhibited such knowledge as to be able to say the locality to which these clerks had been transferred.

An hon. MEMBER
Why ask him?

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON
said, he had apologized for asking without Notice, but he was surprised at the readiness of answer and fulness of information. In drawing attention to this, he wished distinctly to disavow any charge of collusion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but he might have been unwittingly the victim of a conspiracy. It was strange that a transfer of such a kind had never before been made in Tralee. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was entitled to ask this question on the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said such transfers were necessary in the interest of the Service, and so far that was satisfactory; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, was the transfer brought to his knowledge before it was made; or whether it was not the fact that in view of the probability of this question being raised, this information was supplied to him in anticipation?

§ MR. RAIKES
said, he must plead guilty to having more acquaintance with details of administration than the hon. Member seemed disposed to give 610 him credit for. The matter of this transfer came before him some months ago, but the facts were in his memory sufficiently to enable him to give the answer he had given. If the hon. Gentleman desired more specific information, he would look into the matter again and ascertain if there were any grounds for the allegation made.

§ MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON
said, he was satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.