§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to Correspondence between Mr. T. K. Austin, J.P., of Dublin, and the Secretary of the General Post Office in Ireland, respecting a telegram despatched from Montreal, and addressed to "Battersby, Dublin, Ireland," but not delivered; whether, as the telegram referred to the purchase of 732 house property in Dublin, and Mr. Battersby is the head of a well-known house agency firm, there was any excuse for the non-delivery of the telegram; and, if the summary method apparently adopted by the Department in Dublin, in declining to take any trouble with telegrams which they may deem to be insufficiently addressed, was in accordance with the directions issued by the General Post Office?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKKS, University of Cambridge)The Correspondence to which the hon. Member refers has now been submitted to me. The directions issued from head-quarters require that the telegraph officials shall not lightly treat any telegram as non-deliverable, and that, in cases where the sender appears to have done his best to give a full address, every effort is to be made to effect delivery. In the present case, not only had the sender omitted the name of the street, but he had given the address in such form that it was equally applicable to several persons of the same name in Dublin. I am very sorry if any inconvenience has been caused, but the Dublin Post Office appears to have acted in accordance with general rules.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a telegram and a letter which I hold in my hand, and which are addressed in the same way, wore delivered by the Post Office; and is it the rule of the Telegraph Department not to apply the same principles to the delivery of a telegram for which 26s. have been paid which they apply to a letter upon which a single penny has been paid?
§ MR. RAIKESI am not acquainted with the facts of the case, but it is quite possible that it would be less difficult to deliver a letter than a telegram.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question, namely, whether as the telegram referred to the purchase of house property in Dublin, and Mr. Battersby is the head of a well-known house agency firm there can be any excuse for the non-delivery of the telegram? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the matter personally.
§ MR. RAIKESI have given to the hon. Gentleman all the information 733 I have been able to obtain upon the subject.
§ MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W,)Is the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), on the slender foundation of the solitary instance he has mentioned, entitled to cast on the Post Office Department such sweeping and unqualified aspersions? All I can say is that in the case of hon. Members of this House—and especially of the Irish Members—the Post Office always takes the utmost care in forwarding their telegrams.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last ten days other complaints have been made of the non-delivery of telegrams?
§ MR. RAIKESI can only say that I shall be glad to investigate any other complaint?