MR. EENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is true that the Lords of the Treasury have recently 873 decided to increase the wages of men entering the postal service from 16s. to 18s. per week; and whether the Treasury Minute relating to this concession confines its operation to one class of men, and states that the Postmaster General is to "oppose all further claims for increase of wages to other classes of postmen;" and, if so, whether he can state on what grounds the advance is to be refused to other classes of postmen?
§ * MR. RAIKESIt is quite true that, with the concurrence of the Lords of the Treasury, the initial wages of the second class of London postmen have been advanced from 16s. to 18s. a week. It is a fact that the Lords of the Treasury did at the same time indicate their opinion that any further claim for increase of wages to other classes of postmen could not be entertained. Their Lordships regard the wages of the first class, with the contingent advantages of good conduct stripes, uniform, sick pay during absence, gratuitous medical attendance, and pensions, as affording adequate remuneration.
MR. FENWICKThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question; namely, on what grounds the advance is refused to other classes of postmen?
§ * MR. RAIKESI think I did answer it. I stated that the wages of the other class carried with them certain contingent advantages in the shape of medical attendance and pensions, which are regarded by the Treasury as affording adequate remuneration.
§ * MR. C. GRAHAMWhy is it that the provision made for workmen in the employment of the Post Office is essentially different from that of any other body of workmen in the Kingdom.
§ [No answer was given.]