§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the East Central letters of the French Mail, which arrived on Saturday night at 6.40, and should have gone out by the 8.15 delivery 1136 the same night, were still in the office on Sunday night; whether the block in the East Central Office on Saturday night was as great as is usually the case at Christmas time; and what is the cause of such unusual pressure? I have to ask, further, whether it has been reported to him that on Friday last, on the Western District, postmen who should have finished their delivery at 4.20, and be on duty again at 5.20, only finished their delivery at 5.40, and were then deprived of their usual time allowance for tea; whether such delay was caused by the non-arrival in due time of the district bags from the Central Office; and what was the cause of such delay; whether it is the case that a large quantity of circulars which were received at the General Post Office on the 13th instant were not despatched till 10 a.m. on Monday the 16th instant; whether, in consequence, the usual 10.20 a.m. delivery was delayed fully half-an-hour; whether a special staff was asked to work on all through Saturday night; and whether, in the ordinary course, such circulars would have gone out on Saturday morning? I have also to ask how much has been expended at the E.C. and W. District Post Offices in payment for extra duty caused by the suspension of postmen at those offices for attending a Trade Union meeting on the 16th May; and why the letters by the Dutch mail arriving at 8.15 a.m. on Saturday and Monday were not delivered until between 11.30 and 12.45; whether this was two hours beyond the usual and proper time; and whether he can take steps to prevent this delay, which causes great inconvenience to business men in the City?
§ THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,) Cambridge UniversityTo questions Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 33 the answer is, in each case, There is no foundation for the statements suggested. To question 32 the answer is £5 6s. 6d.
§ MR. CONYBEAREThe answer of the right hon. Gentleman is the same which he gave me two or three days ago. I should like to ask him on what authority he makes the statement that there is no foundation whatever for these allegations? I can only say that the information has been supplied to me on the very highest authority.
§ MR. RAIKESI have made the statement on the best official information I could obtain at the Post Office.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the number of postmen who had a part of their wages forfeited for attending a Trade Union meeting on 16th May, the ordinary weekly wage of the men, and the total amount forfeited?
§ MR. RAIKESThirty one; but three having given satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour, the punishment in their case has been remitted. The wages of the men ranged from 18s. to 32s. The total amount forfeited cannot be stated at present or until it be known how many of the men, besides those who have already done so, are prepared to give satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour.
§ MR. CONYBEAREWill the right hon. Gentleman state what are the satisfactory assurances these men have given?
§ MR. RAIKESThey have given their word, which I regard as a satisfactory assurance.
§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)Do, the Regulations apply to the superior officers as well as the working men?
§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N. W.)I beg to ask the Post master General if he will state whether the persons he sent to obtain, or from whom he did obtain, the names and numbers of the men who attended the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on 16th May, have reported some men as being at that meeting who were not there; and whether the officers who performed this work were the ordinary overseers or assistant overseers, or whether they were from the Confidential or Criminal Investigation Department?
§ MR. RAIKESIt is the fact that some of the men who were reported as being at the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on the 16th May have stated that they were not there, or that they happened to be passing on their way without any intention of attending the meeting. In all such cases the assurances of the men have been accepted. The officers employed were of various grades, and did not belong to the Confidential Inquiry Branch.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. Raynor, assistant or second class overseer, and Mr. Birch, foreman porter, at the Western District Post Office, were sent to Cavendish Square on 16th May to take the names and numbers of the postmen who assembled there for a Trades Union procession; whether these gentlemen went on their own responsibility; and, in either case, whether their information was made use of; whether, in consequence, Mr. Raynor lost all control over his subordinates, and had to be removed to a new position; and whether such officials will be so employed in future?
§ MR. RAIKESI have to say that the officers employed on this occasion acted under the instructions of their official superiors. It would therefore serve no useful purpose to mention the names of individuals so employed. Mr. Raynor has been removed to a fresh duty, but not in consequence of his having lost control over his sudordinates. For the future the same or some other Post Office servants will be similarly employed as occasion may require.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in 1882 a meeting of postmen, including delegates from country postmen, was held in the Memorial Hall, to which the public were admitted, at which a Member of Parliament and several postmen made speeches; and whether postmen were punished for attending or speaking at such meeting?
§ MR. RAIKESI am not aware of the circumstance to which the hon. Member refers, and the shortness of the notice has not admitted of my making inquiry.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the objects and methods of organisation and action of the Postmen's Union; whether he will communicate the result to the House; and whether, if he should be satisfied that it does fully represent the postmen, and that they wish matters affecting their wages, hours of labour, &C., to be negotiated between the Department and their Trade Union officials, he will take steps to give effect to their wishes?
§ MR. RAIKESNo, Sir. I must absolutely decline to discuss matters 1139 affecting the postmen, except with the I postmen themselves.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he declines to treat with anyone but the postmen themselves? Is the Secretary to the Postmen's Union to be excluded from discussions as to the interests of the men?
§ MR. RAIKESThe postmen are perfectly well aware that the person described as the Secretary to the Postmen's Union is not, and never has been, a Post Office servant; and it is the universal rule that matters relating to persons engaged in the Service can only be discussed between them and their superior officers.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMDo these men, on becoming postmen, forfeit their right to join a Trades Union; and has the right hon. Gentleman any right to subject them to quasi-military discipline?
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ancient contention of the employers of this country was that they alone should settle any disputes with their workmen, without the interposition of the Secretary of a Trades Union? There were continual conflicts in consequence; but since the employers of labour have taken the more common-sense plan of discussing these matters with the Secretary of the Union there has been much peace. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the advantage of the experience gained by the employers of labour, and adopt the same plan in his Department?
§ MR. RAIKESI must point out that I have only endeavoured to carry out the Regulations of my Department, which, I may add, have been considerably relaxed for the benefit of the men. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), the most recent experience indicates, I think, the advisability of maintaining a firm and resolute attitude.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMI wish to have a decided answer in the affirmative or negative as to whether these men are prohibited from joining a Trade Union, or whether they are not?
§ MR. RAIKESI can only say, again, that the men are quite free to form or join Associations for their mutual benefit 1140 and mutual consideration of matters affecting their status;but it is impossible for the Department to recognise any combination which attempts to dictate to it on matters relating to its administration.