§ MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAMI wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state by whose authority processions of postmen, proceeding to a meeting in Clerkenwell Green, on the night of Friday, the 16th, were interfered with by the police, and forced to break up; by what authority a bill, purporting to be from the Postmaster General, warning men from attending the meeting, was issued; and if a postman is in any way subject to such discipline as authorises his superior officers to order him not to attend a meeting out of working hours?
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONMay I ask why, on the same evening, a procession of gas stokers was broken up by the police at Mile End?
§ MR. MATTHEWSWith reference to the last question, perhaps the hon. Member will give notice; of it. It was by my authority that processions of postmen were not allowed by the police to proceed along Oxford street or any of the thoroughfares in which the passage of a procession at night must necessarily cause inconvenience and even danger to the public, especially on an occasion when a celebration in the city was likely to bring unusual crowds into the streets. The bill purporting to be from the Postmaster General was issued by the authority of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General. An order prohibiting Post Office servants from holding meetings outside the Post Office building for the discussion of official questions has been in existence since March, 1866. This order was relaxed by my right hon. Friend in April last, by a Circular in which he allowed such meetings, subject to specified conditions. The Post Office, like any other employer, is entitled to prescribe conditions on which the servants of the Department will be retained in the Service.
§ MR. A. WILLIAMSMay I ask whether the Order of 1866, said to be more stringent, has ever really been enforced at these meetings?
§ MR. CREMERI would ask, on what ground does the Postmaster General claim to prohibit meetings of working men after their hours of employment; whether such is a Constitutional course of proceeding; and why he has taken refuge behind the rules and regulations framed by his predecessors?
§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)Is Oxford Street, like other neighbourhoods, prohibited to processionists? also desire to know whether it is the intention of the Home Secretary, if he remains in office long enough, to close all the main arteries of London to processionists.
§ MR. MATTHEWSIt is my intention to prevent, as long as I possibly can, public inconvenience and danger being-caused by processions, or in other ways. As to the action of previous Postmasters General, I must ask hon. Members to give notice of their questions.
§ MR. C. GRAHAMIs it not the fact that the procession was a small one of 200 men, which could not obstruct the traffic?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI had no reason to believe that the procession would be a very small one. It was represented to me that it would be a very large one.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDSDoes the right hon. Gentleman contend that all processions necessarily interfere with the comfort of the rest of the public?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI must decline to argue such general questions.
§ MR. PICTON (Leicester)Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us if there are two sets of rules, one for processions of working men, and one for the Lord Mayor's procession?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe Lord Mayor's procession is of immemorial standing. If it had to be considered de novo, I do not know what view might be taken. At all events, the Lord Mayor does not have his procession at night.
§ *MR. CREMERI addressed a very respectful question to the Postmaster General, to which he has not deigned to reply. I shall put it down for another day, and when the Estimates for the Post Office come under discussion I shall move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, with a view of registering a protest against what I believe to be his most un-Constitutional abuse of power.