§ 15. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,752,553, 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, 1890, 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. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)The House will remember that on Saturday afternoon I had a notice of Amendment on the Paper in reference to this Vote but withdrew it, in order to enable the Government to obtain the Vote, the understanding being that I should raise the question I desired to bring under the notice of the House on Report. I wish to draw attention to two matters—namely, the neglect of the Postmaster General to carry out any of the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed in 1887 to consider the question of Sunday postal labour, and secondly, the excessive hours of labour of the telegraph clerks of the Metropolis. The Committee of 1887 recommended, with reference to the question of the discontinuance of Sunday postal deliveries, that a system of local option should be introduced, with the proviso that where the postal delivery was discontinued there should be a window delivery. The Committee also recommended that the indoor and outdoor officials should, as far as practicable, have every alternate Sunday to themselves. These were recommendations of a very moderate character, and the second one was in accordance with the views of the Select Committee of 1871. What I complain of is that although the recommendations of the Committee were moderate, the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has refused to act on them. In November last a question was put to the Postmaster General, and his reply covered, the whole ground of the recommendations of the Committee. I will not deal with all those recommendations; but I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question with 1849 regard to the experiments carried out with book and newspaper packets at Bristol, Nottingham, and Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman stated in his reply that the reduction of the work to the outdoor Post Office officials was counterbalanced by the additional work imposed on the indoor officials. I should like to have some further explanation on that point. He also took exception to our recommendation that window deliveries should be substituted for the present system. He stated that window delivery was dangerous and uncertain; but I would draw attention to the evidence laid before the Select Committee from the town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the system has prevailed for a long time, and where it has resulted in cutting down the labour of Post Office officials to a very considerable extent, because whereas formerly about 50 officials were required, now only 20 have to be in attendance on Sundays. I believe, too, that in only one trifling instance has there been any danger to correspondence in consequence of letters being delivered to a wrong person. Similar evidence was given with regard to towns in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman obtained the opinion of the Town Councils in eight large towns, and he stated that, on the whole, that opinion was adverse to anything like a discontinuance of Sunday postal deliveries Now, it will be remembered that the Committee recommended that two-thirds of the ratepayers should have the power to decide the point as to whether there should be Sunday deliveries, instead of two-thirds of the receivers of correspondence, as is now the case. We contend that this question of Sunday labour is a national question, which interests everyone in the country, and on which every ratepayer has a right to express his opinion. Now, I am chiefly interested in the last recommendation of the Committee, because it was owing to my own action that it was adopted. That recommendation was that the indoor and outdoor officials should have an alternate day's rest on Sundays. I was very much struck by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He said that the indoor officials generally did only two hours work on Sundays, and in most cases they got at least one Sunday out of 1850 every three, and he did not think it necessary to afford any further relief. Now, I absolutely contest that assertion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I find, on reference to the evidence of Sir Arthur Blackwood, that in the town of Aberdeen the indoor officials are on duty every Sunday; that in Belfast they are on duty three Sundays out of four; that in Cork the first-class officials are on duty three Sundays out of four, and the second-class on every Sunday; that in Halifax the officials are on duty seven Sundays out of eight, and that the same proportions prevail in many other towns. I venture to suggest, therefore, that this evidence does not support the reply which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General gave to a question last November. I think it is a great hardship that the sorting clerks should have to be on duty on Sunday after Sunday. I believe, indeed, that in some cases they only get one Sunday off in every 12. We ought to bear in mind that even if a man works only two or three hours on a Sunday the day is practically broken up, and it cannot be considered a complete holiday. I am not bringing this matter forward on Sabbatarian grounds. I am putting it merely on grounds of fairness, and I think we can fairly ask the Postmaster General to advance in the direction I have indicated, and which was indicated in the recommendation of the Committee, and give these men more relief than they now have. I hope I shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman to night that he is prepared to grant this relief. Now, I desire to touch for one moment on the question of rural messengers. Sir Arthur Blackwood, in his evidence, stated that of the 3,304 rural messengers working on Sundays, 2,242 had alternate Sundays as a day of rest, and that the remaining 1,062 were on duty every Sunday in the year. I should just like to draw the attention of the House to this question: How much would it cost to enable these 1,062 men to get a complete rest on every alternate Sunday? In the Debate last year there was a strong expression of opinion on this point by the hon. Member for Oxford University—an opinion which should carry great weight with it on the other side of the House. The hon. Gentleman said it was plainly the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to 1851 loosen, the purse strings and provide the moderate amount necessary to furnish this much desired relief. I will not quote the speech; but if hon. Members will refer to Hansard they will find that the hon. Gentleman gave the strongest possible expression of opinion on the matter. Surely out of the mighty surplus arising from Post Office administration the trifling sum of £3,000 or £4,000 could be set apart for this pupose. I therefore hope we shall have from the Postmaster General some assurance of his willingness to give way on this point. And now I wish to draw attention to some facts which have been placed in my hands by the noble Lord the Member for the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire with regard to telegraph clerks in the Metropolis, and on these facts I have to ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. It will be remembered that some years since, when Mr. Fawcett was at the head of the Department, it was pointed out that the clerks at the Central Telegraph Office suffered severely from the long hours of night labour, and as a result they were reduced from eight to seven. But I am informed that even now some of the clerks do day as well as night duty; that they work from 10 a.m till 3 p.m., from 5 p.m. till 8 p.m., and from 8 p.m. till 7 a.m., or a total of 19 out of every 24 hours. I am informed that the telegraph clerks are performing 14 hours work a day—from 12 at noon until 2 a.m. on the following day—with only one hour during the whole of that period for their meals. I am also told that the clerks who have objected to working these hours have been called upon to give a written explanation. I should like to have some information as to the truth of these statements, and a guarantee that these excessive hours of work for these officials, if substantiated, shall be reduced. I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out "£4,752,653," in order to insert "£4,752,453,"—(Mr. Channing.)
§ Question proposed,"That'£4,752,553' stand part of the Resolution."
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs a point of order, I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it has not been ruled that a re- 1852 duction of a Vote cannot be moved on Report stage?
§ * MR. SPEAKERIt has never been, so ruled.
§ MR. SEXTONI would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General if he will give us some information as to the issuing of warrants by the Chief Secretary in Ireland and the Home Secretary in England for the opening of the letters of Members of Parliament? I would ask whether the warrants have been directed against the correspondence of particular persons; whether they are for stated periods of time, and, if so, for what periods; what is the date of the last; and considering the admission that a certain letter addressed to me was opened by an unauthorised person, what precautions the right hon. Gentleman has taken, or intends to take, against the opening of a letter in the Post Office by a person not having legal authority?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI have given notice to the right hon. Gentleman of my intention to direct his attention to the Special Commission, and to Mr. Maberley's conduct in connection with the trial. We know from the action of the Attorney General during the Parnell Commission that, although it has been strenuously denied that such a thing has taken place, letters of Irish Members have been opened in the Post Office, for the Attorney General was able to produce one addressed by Dr. Kenny to Mr. O'Kelly. The Attorney General could only have obtained possession of the letter surreptitiously. I make no comment on the Attorney General' saction as a lawyer in using a document which could only be obtained burglariously. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not hesitate to make use of the letters improperly obtained; but that, of course, is merely a question of good taste. We know that this practice of opening letters of ours has been constantly going on, and I think it most desirable we should have a clear understanding of what is taking place in the matter. For my own part, I have always made it a rule, not only since I entered public life, but before, not to put anything in a letter which I would not care to have published at Charing Cross. Therefore, I do not in the least object to the Postmaster General having my correspondence opened before him, provided he for- 1853 wards it on to me afterwards without unnecessary delay. Unfortunately, however, that course has not been pursued, because letters, and letters even containing cheques for large amounts, addressed to me, have been unwarrantably detained at the Post Office. This has not occurred for some time, but still it has taken place, and only lately I have seen letters addressed to other hon. Members which have been opened before delivery. There is a gentleman in subcommand of the General Post Office in Dublin, named Maberly, and the moment the Parnell Commission began its sittings, Maberly put himself in communication with Mr. Soames. This established what we have had always contended—namely, that this was a Government inquiry, or, as the Home Secretary puts it, a great State trial. Members of the Government have spoken with two voices in this matter. While the Home Secretary has described the Parnell Commission as a great State trial, other Members of the Government have taken an entirely different line, and have said it is not a great State trial, but a private inquiry conducted by a private newspaper against private individuals. I do not know on what ground the Postmaster General is going to defend Mr. Maberly's conduct, but this I do say that the Times could never have got at the contents of any letter in the Dead Letter Office in Dublin if the arrangements of that office had been kept absolutely secret from Mr. Soames by the gentlemen connected with the Department. If the Government were placing all their resources at the disposal of the Times, and thoroughly glorified in the transaction, I should not attach the least blame to Mr. Maberly for going to Mr. Soames and giving him all the information at his disposal. That would be an intelligible stand to take; but when the Government allege that they have given the Times no aid at all, and when they say that the Attorney General who conducted the case for the Times was not the Attorney General in that case but Sir R. Webster acting as a private barrister, and that Mr. Soames was there as a private solicitor, I want to know how they obtained their information from the Dead Letter Office. Speaking roughly, Mr. Maberly is a gentleman who is known in Ireland as of the 1854 Orange persuasion, and has replaced all his Catholic officials by Protestants. In this ease the Government, or rather Mr. Soames—I really do not know which, for they are like the trinity in unity—served Mr. Maberly with a subpæna daces tecum to produce certain letters from that office, and the documents which he had to bring with him must have been specified. How could Mr. Soames have known of Mr. Ma-berly's existence or of the evidence which he could give and the documents which he could produce from the Dead Letter Office except from Mr. Maberly himself? But though Mr. Maberly was in attendance at the Court, he was never called, although no doubt his documents were examined by the Attorney General—or, I ought to say, by Sir Richard Webster, because, of course, he was not Her Majesty's Attorney General. Dr. Jekyll was then Mr. Hyde. Mr. Soames was supplied with all the information which it was in the power of Mr. Maberly to produce. Dead letters are dealt with in a particular way if no owner is found after a certain period; and why, then, were these particular letters kept so long? In the ordinary course they would have been destroyed. I would ask the Postmaster General if these were State documents, and were to be used for State purposes, why were they not sent to Dublin Castle or the Kildare Street Club? I ask for information on this point. I ask what is the rule with regard to dead letters and their destruction? I must say that all the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman may give will not satisfy the Irish Members as to the non-existence of the practice of tampering with our letters in the Dublin Post Office. I do not complain of their examining our letters for certain purposes. When they have a whole population against them as they have in Ireland, and when they believe that whole population to be murderers, as they say they do in the case of Ireland, they must take some precautions. I do not object to their getting up and saying, "We will open the letters of the whole 86 of you." That would be an intelligible and justifiable attitude to take up. In one of the Invincible cases, I forget which, it was the opening of letters which enabled the Government to 1855 get upon the track of the men connected with the crime. That, I say, would be an intelligible position to take up. But what I hate in the business is that the Government say they do not do this, and that they say—"We are a pure Government; we remember Sir Charles Graham, and do not do this sort of thing." They are ashamed to acknowledge in the face of Europe what they are doing, and they endeavour to obtain the advantages of the methods of foreign despotism with the appearance of liberal and enlightened administration. It is known for a fact that packets of letters were constantly taken to the Castle by an official, were steamed and opened, and read in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Londonderry), and afterwards forwarded, or not, as the Government thought best. Now, what is the rule with regard to Ireland? I presume that the Lord Lieutenant has power to issue warrants, and that he does issue them. So notorious is the practice, that when in the case of the famous Mr. Cornwall, the Secretary of the Dublin Post Office, the gentleman who retired on the ground of ill health, and whose pension has lately been voted, when we subjected him to inquisition in the French scandal, he said—
The only acquaintance I had with French was when he came to me and got certain letters; and sometimes £ would give him a letter because he never came to me without a warrant;and yet at that time Mr. Fawcett was assuring us that nothing of the kind was going on. In the same way the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General will get up and say he is not aware of any such practice. I do not suppose that his subordinates come and tell the right hon. Gentleman; but I would ask him, will he take steps to ascertain from those in the Dublin Post Office whether this sort of thing is being done? Let the Postmaster General call them before him and have no hanky-panky about it; but say, "I want to know what is the practice; I want to see the steamkettle by which this is done." He might also visit the mail boats, which are mightily convenient and accommodating places for this sort of thing, it being notorious that letters are opened and examined on board those boats, and that numbers of the detective staff have travelled in 1856 them for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of certain persons; while in cases where they did not know it themselves, they have taken other persons with them for the same purpose. I could name a person who was at one time a Member of Parliament, who travelled with detectives from Dublin for the purpose of identifying the handwriting of Members, of this House; and there can be no doubt that Sir Hichard Webster got the letter of Dr. O'Kelly by some similar kind of metempsychosis. The Attorney General is sitting next the Postmaster General, who may, perhaps, consult his friend on the subject. What we say is this: Here is the system going on now as it has been going on for years. I should not object to its going on if the Government would only say, "We require it to be done and will continue to do it," because in that case the public would act accordingly. As far as we are concerned, it is well-known that where any letters of ours are urgent and require secrecy, we never entrust them to the British postman, and the fact that the Post Office is not trusted is one which the Postmaster General ought to take notice of and be anxious to remedy. I protest also against the way in which the Catholics are treated in Dublin. The Dublin Post Office is a nest of Orangemen and Freemasons—gentlemen who band themselves together for the purpose of preventing the Catholics from getting promotion, and who are, in reality, an association for boycotting Catholics. Under all these circumstances I do think the right hon. Gentleman, if he has the time, ought, during the holidays, to pay the Dublin Post Office a visit in order that he may overhaul these people and find out what is really going on.
§ * THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES, Cambridge University)In reply to the remarks that have been made by hon. Members opposite, I may say that I have made inquiries, as well as experiments, as to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for East Northampton; but, after inquiries, I have found that work would be rather increased than diminished if his suggestion were carried out. Careful consideration has also been given to the subject of the delivery of letters on Sundays with a view to 1857 the possibility of its being discontinued. The Department put themselves in communication with the eight largest towns in England, and asked the Town Councils to give their opinions as to the practicability or desirability of introducing that change. Six, including Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, declared against making any such change in the postal arrangements. Bristol did not express an opinion, and Nottingham was in favour of the change; but even in Nottingham the majority was not sufficient to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. The hon. Member suggested that we might try the system of window deliveries. After consulting the persons most experienced in the large towns of this country, the Department were forced to the conclusion that it was not adapted to populous places in this country. The danger of letters getting into wrong hands and the great pressure are certainly to be avoided in the interests of the public. In some places there would be danger of the post offices being mobbed. This country is not like Scotland or Newcastle, where the people are not accustomed to have their letters delivered on Sundays. The principle shall, however, be recognised in less populous places. As regards giving postmen alternate Sundays off, a good deal has been done, and some thousands of pounds spent. I can assure the hon. Member that my attention has been called to the question of reducing the pressure of labour inside post offices as well as outside. As to the hours of work by telegraph clerks in the Metropolis, the hon. Member did not give notice of his intention to bring that subject forward, and consequently I am not prepared to meet him at this moment. I am afraid, however, it is a fact that some of the clerks, especially in the central office, work for a longer time than is desirable; but the work is generally overtime work, performed by volunteers for additional wages. But I promise to look into the matter. As regards the serious charges against the administration of the Post Office in Ireland, I can supplement the statement which I made on Saturday by saying that the warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland by the Home Secretary for England and Scotland, authorising the opening of the letters of particular persons, are not 1858 expressly limited in regard to their duration. A warrant given to intercept the correspondence of any particular individual continues to run until it is cancelled. But there is not at this moment in England or in Ireland any existing warrant. I believe there has been no warrant existing in Ireland since I have been in office, and in the same period there has been only one warrant in England, and that had reference to an ordinary criminal case. As regards Mr. Maberly, neither I nor the Department have any knowledge of any communication between that gentleman and the representatives of the Times. The Post Office have sanctioned no transaction whatever between Mr. Maberly and the Times and they have no knowledge of any such transaction.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYDid the right, hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Maberly how the Times got the book?
§ * MR. RAIKESI asked Mr. Maberly with regard to the question put to me the other day by the hon. and learned Member whether he took or produced any letters, and Mr. Maberly assured me that he did not. I am unable to see how Mr. Maberly could produce any letters unless he purloined them. I am told that this official is an Orangeman. That may be so. But I am also told that Mr. Maberly has driven every Catholic out of his office. I can only say with regard to the question put to me that Mr. Maberly's superior officer has not been removed from office. This gentleman has been temporarily employed in another branch of the Post office, and I have directed that he should be re-transferred to the position he previously held. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman or any one else seriously believes there is any intention on the part of the Government to dispense with the services or to disparage the services of Catholic servants of the State. These gentlemen are among the most trusted of Her Majesty's servants, and I should be extremely sorry if any one for a moment supposes that the Government wish to dispense with their services. I will make inquiries with regard to the missing cheque referred to by the hon. Member for Longford if the hon. Member will supply me with particulars. I am not aware that any dead letters have been kept from the natural process 1859 of destruction for one moment longer than they ought to have been in consequence of any proceedings in connection with the Times. If I find there is any foundation for the statement that dead letters have been kept beyond their proper time I shall be happy to offer the hon. Member the best explanation I jean. Then the statement has been made by the hon. Member that letters have been taken in packets before Lord Londonderry during his Viceroyalty and opened in his presence. That is a serious statement, and the hon. Member has made it on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament. It imputes to the Lord Lieutenant conduct of a very serious character; and I think it will be my duty to ask Lord Londonderry whether there is any foundation for such a statement. The hon. Member has made the statement on his own responsibility.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAnd I fully believe it.
§ * MR. RAIKESI understand that he fully believes in its accuracy, and I suppose he is in a position to produce evidence in support of it. Of course it is not for me to positively deny a statement as to which I have no evidence whatever; but I perhaps may be forgiven if I say that it appears to me that the hon. Member must have been grossly deceived in making such an allegation. I cannot suppose it possible that the Lord Lieutenant could have been a party to transactions of this sort, which are so entirely irregular and, I presume, illegal. I will, however, make it my business to ascertain from the Lord Lieutenant whether there is anything which can give a colour to such a charge. With regard to Mr. Cornwall, that gentleman received no pension and had never applied for one. I will make inquiries as to whether the Post Office bags have been violated on board the Irish steamers. Of course, if anything of the kind had been done, it would constitute a grave crime; and I should be the first person to put the law in force if I found any person had in any way violated the sanctity of the post. If any person in England or Ireland opens a letter without having the proper authority to do so, he would be committing a grave crime, for which he might be severely punished. And I should be wanting in my duty if I did 1860 not take steps to punish any such offender. It may be the case that a letter addressed even to a Member of Parliament may be the subject of a criminal transaction. I know nothing of Mr. O'Kelly's letter; but if any person opened a letter addressed to that hon. Member, or to any other hon. Member, or, in fact, to any subject of the Queen in Ireland or England without a proper warrant from the Secretary of State in the one instance, or the Lord Lieutenant in the other, he would be committing a great crime against the laws of the land, for which he might be very severely punished. I certainly should be wanting in my duty if, under such circumstances, I did not take steps to punish the offender if evidence was forthcoming to enable me to act in the matter.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)I wish to say that last year, on Report of a Vote, I brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman a rather singular case, in which three Catholic telegraphists, because they were suspected of communicating information from their office in Tralee, were removed, and three Protestant Freemason Orangemen being put in their place. This is the first time I have ever ventured to raise the question as between Catholics and Protestants, and I now do it simply in order to enlighten the Postmaster General, and to enable him to act in this case. I have been in a National School and have been reared with Protestants. I have lived amongst them all my life, and have never found any cause of quarrel with them, and I hope I never may. Still, the curious anomaly which I have referred to has taken place, and the Postmaster General seems to be utterly oblivious of the fact that the question of the religion of these telegraphists was raised. In the town of Tralee, Protestants are only one in ten, and yet in the Post Office there are now no Catholics. It is surely a hard thing to say that because you merely suspect people of misusing their information, you shall replace all the Catholics in the Post Office by Protestants. I recognise the kindly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General has spoken to my hon. Friend. He spoke to me in a similar strain last year, but he has done nothing. It seems to me 1861 that the Post Office as well as the police officials in the part of Ireland to which I refer, are completely in the hands of Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grasp the facts of this case, and will ascertain why the three Catholic telegraphists to whose case I draw attention were removed from Tralee. I do not make any apology for reviving this question, and asking the right hon. Gentleman why nothing was done to carry out his promise. I do not want to see any change made in the rules and internal arrangements of Irish Telegraph Offices except such as are fair and equitable. I do not wish to have friends in the Post Office who can tell me secrets. I do not wish to see such an ugly and disagreeable system at the Post Office as that would involve; but, at the same time, I think the Government are setting a bad precedent in allowing clerks of one religious persuasion to be withdrawn in order to make room for others of another religious persuasion. I would ask the Postmaster General to apply his mind to this case in the spirit in which he has applied it to the case mentioned by my hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy).
§ * MR. RAIKESI can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. I have some recollection of the case to which the hon. Member refers, though it is not so vivid as it was 12 months ago. This much I remember, that the telegraph clerks were not removed from the Post Office because they were Catholics, but because they had been persistently getting into what was considered rather disorderly company.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONThey were replaced by Protestants.
§ * MR. RAIKESBut they remained in the service, and there is no reason why they should not rise to high positions. All I can say is that they were not transferred because they were Catholics. They were transferred because it was represented to me that they had got into disorderly company. I was not aware before that the three clerks who replaced those who were transferred were Protestants, but I may mention that one of them has himself got into disorderly company in the North, and he has been removed to the South in the hope that he may do better there. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the 1862 question of religion does not influence, my action in regard to the transfer of officials.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTONI wish to explain, Mr. Speaker, that last year I did not gather from the Postmaster General that there was any allegation of misconduct against these men. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is the first time that the allegations has been made against them.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI desire the House to take note of the fact that the Postmaster General has not answered me upon the specific point I raised, and I will therefore ask the House and the country to draw their own deductions from that. I asked, it will be remembered, how Mr. Soames got the information which appeared in the subpoena served upon Mr. Maberly. He replied that he was not able to give the House that information. I asked, in the second place, how Mr. Soames got the information which enabled the Attorney General to read to the Special Commission letters written by two Members of this House. Again, he was unable to tell me what I wanted to know; and I hope, therefore, that the country generally will appreciate at its full value the ignorance professed by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ 16. "That a sum, not exceeding £484,405, 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, 1890, for the Expense of the Post Office Packet Service."
§ Resolution agreed to.